How I Feel About Atheists

[PureX]

It doesn't serve you well to ignore everything that actual atheists tell you about atheism.
It's like a goldfish telling me that I'm riding a bicycle all wrong.

Right, I should be allowing others to define atheism, for me.

Wait, why should I be doing this, again?

Oh! That's right! It's because atheists are smarter and less biased about atheism than I am!

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, I should be allowing others to define atheism, for me.

Wait, why should I be doing this, again?

Oh! That's right! It's because atheists are smarter and less biased about atheism than I am!

We're more familiar with what we (dis)believe.
Similarly, I let believers define their beliefs, without telling them otherwise.

 

[PureX]

Why, in your opinion, is an absence of belief in deities not "atheism"?

Because the absence of something is not something. That's just basic logic.

Why do you think more is required than a lack of belief in deities?

For nothing to become something, something must be added to it. Because nothing, by itself, is nothing.

"Unbelief" is nothing for two reasons; 1. what one believes or does not believe is not relevant to the philosophical definition of atheism, and 2., what we don't believe is irrelevant, regardless.

 

[PureX]

We're more familiar with what we (dis)believe.
Similarly, I let believers define their beliefs, without telling them otherwise.

What believers believe, and what you don't believe does not define theism nor atheism. It only defines you as one or the other. I am not here to define you. And I am not trying to. I am defining atheism, logically, and in a philosophical context. Until you can offer me a logical, philosophical reason why I should alter my definition, I am not going to alter it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists tell us time and time again that imagination is fiction. It's "make-believe". That it's not "real", because in their materialist truth-paradigm only physical matter is "real". Their existence is defined by the 'objectively material'. And that excludes the imaginary.

I don't think I have ever met anyone (atheist or otherwise) who told me that imagination is fiction or "not real".

I can only assume that you are extrapolating like crazy from something that was said at some point regarding abstraction and reality.

Right, I should be allowing others to define atheism, for me.

Wait, why should I be doing this, again?

Oh! That's right! It's because atheists are smarter and less biased about atheism than I am!

Actually, that is just about right...

Because the absence of something is not something. That's just basic logic.
For nothing to become something, something must be added to it. Because nothing, by itself, is nothing.

"Unbelief" is nothing for two reasons; 1. what one believes or does not believe is not relevant to the philosophical definition of atheism, and 2., what we don't believe is irrelevant, regardless.

... as you so conveniently lampshaded here.

 

[leibowde84]

Atheists tell us time and time again that imagination is fiction. It's "make-believe". That it's not "real", because in their materialist truth-paradigm only physical matter is "real". Their existence is defined by the 'objectively material'. And that excludes the imaginary.

No, you are misunderstanding them. Imagination is certainly real. It is undeniable. But, imaginary things (things created our imaginations) do not exist in reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

What believers believe, and what you don't believe does not define theism nor atheism. It only defines you as one or the other. I am not here to define you. And I am not trying to. I am defining atheism, logically, and in a philosophical context. Until you can offer me a logical, philosophical reason why I should alter my definition, I am not going to alter it.

I posted a cromulent dictionary definition which differs from yours.
If you use a definition which few others use, it's time to upgrade it.
It's about communication....we should all speak the same language.

 

[atanu]

Another potential infinite regress. The problem is that you are asking for deeper laws that insure that the laws work. But then, you can ask what insures the deeper laws work. And that has to be because of even deeper laws. All that means is that the most fundamental laws 'just are'.

Why should there br infinite regress, if not assumed a-priori? What are the verifiable laws in singularity? You know very well that there are no laws and no time in non dual realm. I will speak more if we continue in scientific spirit of openness.

Well, an *intelligent* carburettor would be able to look around and see how at least the aspects visible are directed to transfer fuel into the engine, energy to the drive train, etc. Even if the whole car isn't visible, there is a definite energy flow. Furthermore, the working of the accelerator (even from just what is visible to the engine) is enough to show that a single point of change produces large scale increased or decreased energy flow. So, even though the purpose may not be known, the design can be seen and the purpose can be seen to be related to directing energy flow to the drive train.

Show me creation of consciousness/intelligence and I will talk.

What do you think?

I think good -- about me and about you. I can only hope for reciprocation.

 

[leibowde84]

Because the absence of something is not something. That's just basic logic.

Well, atheism is not something, it is an identifying term for the absence of something; namely theism.

There are many examples of this in the english language. A glass without water is "empty". Anything with empty space inside it is "hollow". A space devoid of matter is a "vacuum". And, the absence of belief in the existence of deities is "atheism". There are countless examples of how the absence of something is identified as being something.

Remember, atheism is merely an identifying term for the absence of theism, much like the term "hollow" identifies absence.

For nothing to become something, something must be added to it. Because nothing, by itself, is nothing.

"Unbelief" is nothing for two reasons; 1. what one believes or does not believe is not relevant to the philosophical definition of atheism, and 2., what we don't believe is irrelevant, regardless.

You keep on claiming that atheism must be "something". Why must atheism be something rather than the absence of theism?

 

[leibowde84]

What believers believe, and what you don't believe does not define theism nor atheism. It only defines you as one or the other. I am not here to define you. And I am not trying to. I am defining atheism, logically, and in a philosophical context. Until you can offer me a logical, philosophical reason why I should alter my definition, I am not going to alter it.

You have yet to provide your reasoning as to why "atheism" must be something rather than the absence of something, like the terms "emptiness", "hollowness", vacuums, etc.

 

[atanu]

No, but a statistical analysis of the fossil record does not support directed evolution. There *are* some trends: species in a given line *tend* to get larger over time. But this is certainly NOT an ironclad rule. And a statistical analysis is not enough to claim that NO guidance is given to evolution, just that overall none is seen.

Okay.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

But if you look at a crystal, which has structure, we do not think that structure was designed. It happened because of the action of physical laws that serve to direct how the crystal grows. No intelligent intervention is required for this to happen. When you look at a star forming from gravitational compression from a cloud of gas and dust, no intelligent intervention is required for the formation of that star: only the application of the physical laws (primarily gravity). This happens naturally and spontaneously without any intervention at all. In other words, it is not designed.

The vast majority of the universe is like this: operating under physical laws with things happening spontaneously to form structure without any intervention of any kind. The question is whether there are cases where there *is* intelligent intervention and how to detect such. Clearly, in the building, there is intelligent intervention and we know this not only because we have the blueprints. We also know that the natural laws do not spontaneously form structures like buildings. But they do form structures like crystals, stars, and planets.

Whether it makes sense to talk about the design of physical laws is a different question. But it is clear that the *most* fundamental laws cannot be designed: a design implies a more fundamental lset of laws to actuate the design. To put it another way, even if there is an ID, by what laws was the ID able to carry out its design?



Well, to see if they are valid, we only need to ask if they ever or often lead us astray or into contradiction. And it is clearly the case that intuition and innate feelings do, often, even usually, lead us astray. That alone means they are fundamentally unreliable and an invalid way to seek out truth unless supplemented by something else. And that something else is also evident: testing of all ideas against observation and a requirement that all ideas can be tested.


And that is what I fundamentally disagree with. We *know* that deepness of feeling or strength of conviction isn't correlated with the truth of the belief. All you have to do is look around and see how many people have strongly held, but contradictory beliefs.

And, truthfully, this is precisely where you leave the path of reason. Reason does, in fact, require that you have evidence to back up your beliefs and that you not rely on just 'innate feeling' as a support for them.



We all have such. But those beliefs are not, then, based upon reason. They are based upon emotion. To claim them to be reasonable is the problem.



Of course. Science, for example, doesn't deal with aesthetics. It doesn't deal with morality. it doesn't deal with beauty. And those are all vitally important aspects of human existence. But thtat doesn't relate to questions of existence, which *are* scientific questions.


It is a very common misreading of what quantum mechanics says. Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic description of the universe, not a deterministic or a causal one. The 'wave function' for a particle tells the probability of detecting a particle at a point (among other things). That probability can be non-zero at two different points at the same time.



But not all absurd ideas need to be considered seriously. Some really are absurd. And we can make progress in our understanding by at least eliminating the truly absurd ones.

Some great insight and research as always. I agree with some of your points and views but disagree with others, surprise - surprise ! But that is fine. I just don't find it a fact that fundamental laws can't be designed. That is your view based on what you believe through your research and observations. It may seem that way but it isn't necessarily true if there is an ID behind it. An ID could have designed it that way. And I don't see why basing something on emotion is unreasonable. Emotions exist , so maybe they play a role in reasoning, I think where we often disagree is that you leave no room for interpretation of some things and see everything as definitive and that everything in science or in regards to reasoning or emotions, etc. as static and unflinching in their meanings and functions. I just don't believe we know all there is to know about all of these subjects and I leave room for other possibilities, causes, interpretations, etc...Not with everything , but so often our understanding of various ideas and what we see as fact changes over time or is seen in a different light.Like we don't know and understand every aspect of emotion, intuition, feelings, human nature, behavior, reasoning, logic, etc..They may play roles that science doesn't or can't explain. On the flip side, science may very well play a role in morality, aesthetics, beauty, etc..I just don't think we definitively know all there is to know about these various topics where you seem to be so certain about them. This is where I generally disagree with you. You may look for science and reason and logic to explain things that can't be explained by them in the first place. I just don't compartmentalize all things. I think there is more to certain areas of life than meets the eye and may not even require reason and logic as you define them. We don't know everything about everything. We don't know the reasons or nature behind everything. I think that if everything was so static and obvious and defined the world would be different and behave differently, but it doesn't all line up as we would think it should. That in itself demonstrates that there is more to things than we may see or study on the surface. I think a good analogy is science itself. Scientific ideas and findings are always changing as we learn things we didn't know of prior. And we may find out that all of these things we think are definite and reasonable may change in the future as we learn even more and then our parameters of reason and logic pertaining to them will also change. The fact that things change and are not static can also be true for areas that aren't considered scientific. We don't know why everything is or why everything behave as it does. Much of natural and physical laws seem to be definite and we think we understand everything about it but I don't think we do all the time. We briefly discussed quantum mechanics and physics. Physicists admit that there is so much mystery and strange behavior in the field that they know they don't understand it all and are perplexed by outcomes that they can't predict or go against all of their predictions. Same with astronomers when studying the cosmos , dark matter , dark energy, black holes and space. There is room for much possibility in these fields and while we may come to understand some of it someday, we may forever be chasing answers that science or human reasoning or logic may not provide. So this may also apply to others areas , such as natural laws or emotions or whatever. I'm just saying not everything is definite and just because you understand or think something is definite , it may not always be precisely what you thought it to be. Scientists think that all the laws of the known universe break down and are not even able to be understood at the point of an after a singularity of a black hole. Is this idea unreasonable if we have know way of knowing ? Well, maybe this is the case if an ID exists. Perhaps all of our human knowledge , hypothesis, reasoning, logic, and what we think is scientific truth break down and become unknowable by his own design. My point is that there is much possibility where we don't know. And to come down to earth , literally, and natural laws, I think we see it and make reasonable assumptions about it , and wee can test some things and see how they behave, but we don't necessarily know why , and some have valid reasons to believe that things are designed and if that requires a designer than that is a reasonable hypothesis. If all of this was so definite and unflinching, we wouldn't, by our nature, be having all of these discussions and questions that we will continue to always have because I don't believe we will know and understand every aspect of everything and every idea that there is. This also leads me to the POSSIBILITY of an ID or something else we don't or can't comprehend existing in some place and time outside of our human existence and beyond all human thought or comprehension. Just by the fact that we don't know.

 

[atanu]

What would 'guided' mean in practice ?
Something like manipulating genes ?

Not really, IMO. 'Manipulative genes' is a view from ignorance that begins with a notion of separate existence of machine like creatures/beings. But the truth is non dual and the diversity is a movie.

 

[Polymath257]

Atheists tell us time and time again that imagination is fiction. It's "make-believe". That it's not "real", because in their materialist truth-paradigm only physical matter is "real". Their existence is defined by the 'objectively material'. And that excludes the imaginary.

Right. But that doesn't mean that imagination isn't real. There is a distinction, once again, between the idea of a thing and the thing itself. Imagination is a process that exists in humans. It is even a *useful* process for coming up with new ideas. But it is not, in and of itself, a process for finding truth.

 

[Polymath257]

Some great insight and research as always. I agree with some of your points and views but disagree with others, surprise - surprise ! But that is fine. I just don't find it a fact that fundamental laws can't be designed. That is your view based on what you believe through your research and observations. It may seem that way but it isn't necessarily true if there is an ID behind it. An ID could have designed it that way. And I don't see why basing something on emotion is unreasonable. Emotions exist , so maybe they play a role in reasoning, I think where we often disagree is that you leave no room for interpretation of some things and see everything as definitive and that everything in science or in regards to reasoning or emotions, etc. as static and unflinching in their meanings and functions. I just don't believe we know all there is to know about all of these subjects and I leave room for other possibilities, causes, interpretations, etc...Not with everything , but so often our understanding of various ideas and what we see as fact changes over time or is seen in a different light.Like we don't know and understand every aspect of emotion, intuition, feelings, human nature, behavior, reasoning, logic, etc..They may play roles that science doesn't or can't explain. On the flip side, science may very well play a role in morality, aesthetics, beauty, etc..I just don't think we definitively know all there is to know about these various topics where you seem to be so certain about them. This is where I generally disagree with you. You may look for science and reason and logic to explain things that can't be explained by them in the first place. I just don't compartmentalize all things. I think there is more to certain areas of life than meets the eye and may not even require reason and logic as you define them. We don't know everything about everything. We don't know the reasons or nature behind everything. I think that if everything was so static and obvious and defined the world would be different and behave differently, but it doesn't all line up as we would think it should. That in itself demonstrates that there is more to things than we may see or study on the surface. I think a good analogy is science itself. Scientific ideas and findings are always changing as we learn things we didn't know of prior. And we may find out that all of these things we think are definite and reasonable may change in the future as we learn even more and then our parameters of reason and logic pertaining to them will also change. The fact that things change and are not static can also be true for areas that aren't considered scientific. We don't know why everything is or why everything behave as it does. Much of natural and physical laws seem to be definite and we think we understand everything about it but I don't think we do all the time. We briefly discussed quantum mechanics and physics. Physicists admit that there is so much mystery and strange behavior in the field that they know they don't understand it all and are perplexed by outcomes that they can't predict or go against all of their predictions. Same with astronomers when studying the cosmos , dark matter , dark energy, black holes and space. There is room for much possibility in these fields and while we may come to understand some of it someday, we may forever be chasing answers that science or human reasoning or logic may not provide. So this may also apply to others areas , such as natural laws or emotions or whatever. I'm just saying not everything is definite and just because you understand or think something is definite , it may not always be precisely what you thought it to be. Scientists think that all the laws of the known universe break down and are not even able to be understood at the point of an after a singularity of a black hole. Is this idea unreasonable if we have know way of knowing ? Well, maybe this is the case if an ID exists. Perhaps all of our human knowledge , hypothesis, reasoning, logic, and what we think is scientific truth break down and become unknowable by his own design. My point is that there is much possibility where we don't know. And to come down to earth , literally, and natural laws, I think we see it and make reasonable assumptions about it , and wee can test some things and see how they behave, but we don't necessarily know why , and some have valid reasons to believe that things are designed and if that requires a designer than that is a reasonable hypothesis. If all of this was so definite and unflinching, we wouldn't, by our nature, be having all of these discussions and questions that we will continue to always have because I don't believe we will know and understand every aspect of everything and every idea that there is. This also leads me to the POSSIBILITY of an ID or something else we don't or can't comprehend existing in some place and time outside of our human existence and beyond all human thought or comprehension. Just by the fact that we don't know.

Just a suggestion: for easier readability, use paragraphs.

 

[PureX]

Right. But that doesn't mean that imagination isn't real. There is a distinction, once again, between the idea of a thing and the thing itself. Imagination is a process that exists in humans. It is even a *useful* process for coming up with new ideas. But it is not, in and of itself, a process for finding truth.

"Things" only exist in he human mind as ideas. They are "imagined" to be what we think they are. You are not able to recognize this, and so you are not able to understand my perspective on theism or atheism. You still think you are accessing and understanding "objective reality", and determining the "objective truth" about it. When in fact all you know of reality comes to you through your body's senses, and is then imagined in your mind. It's ALL IDEA. And it's all subjective. "God" is no less "real" than a tree. It's just a lot bigger idea.

 

[Polymath257]

"Things" only exist in he human mind as ideas.

Blatantly false. The sun does NOT exist only in the mind as an idea. It actually, physically exists about 93 million miles from us.

They are "imagined" to be what we think they are. You are not able to recognize this, and so you are not able to understand my perspective on theism or atheism.

I understand what you say. I just think it is nonsense. Solipsism, pure and simple.

You still think you are accessing and understanding "objective reality", and determining the "objective truth" about it. When in fact all you know of reality comes to you through your body's senses, and is then imagined in your mind. It's ALL IDEA.

Again, blatantly wrong. We understand through ideas, but there are many things other than ideas that actually exist.

And it's all subjective.

Again, clearly and obviously false. It is NOT a subjective thing to say the sun exists outside of our minds.

"God" is no less "real" than a tree. It's just a lot bigger idea.

A more encompassing idea. But trees actually exist outside of the mind. There is an actual reality out there that doens't depend on ideas in human skulls. The question is whether 'God' is merely an idea that we imagine or whether such a being (however defined) actually exists independent of our thoughts.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Just a suggestion: for easier readability, use paragraphs.

Yea, I get lazy when writing. The thoughts in my head travel faster than my patience to use paragraphs and I just keep writing continuously as I am thinking. I'll use paragraphs next time I write a lengthy response.

 

[Altfish]

"Things" only exist in he human mind as ideas. They are "imagined" to be what we think they are. You are not able to recognize this, and so you are not able to understand my perspective on theism or atheism. You still think you are accessing and understanding "objective reality", and determining the "objective truth" about it. When in fact all you know of reality comes to you through your body's senses, and is then imagined in your mind. It's ALL IDEA. And it's all subjective. "God" is no less "real" than a tree. It's just a lot bigger idea.

So, is god imagined?

 

[Koldo]

Not really, IMO. 'Manipulative genes' is a view from ignorance that begins with a notion of separate existence of machine like creatures/beings. But the truth is non dual and the diversity is a movie.

Then what do you mean by 'guided' evolution ?