How I Feel About Atheists

[Revoltingest]

First before I get accused of plagiarism this thread is a copy done from memory of a write by William Craig, a famous Christian apologist. I couldn't find the original article which contained much more information. I will cut and paste the article if I ever find it.


Well the definition of atheism is difficult or easy depending on the emotional make up of the atheist one asks to define themselves. (lol, I used the word emotional as a substitute for psychological make up. Its an friendly in house sarcasm).

The big question is atheism a view or a psychological condition? If atheism is taken to be a view, like the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. What about the atheists who freely say that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof? Those guys attempt to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition. And psychological conditions can make no assertions. I agree with Craig who says these self named atheists are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities. Don't ask me why I know that is true!

; {>

Ya know....there's always the dictionary to use as a resource for definitions.
(Why is the ole Mirriam Webster or Funk & Wagnalls so ignored on RF?)
It's simple....
Pick the definition which fits the context.
the definition of atheism
It's door #2 for me, Monty.

Btw....the responsibilities of atheism?
There are none....it's merely one of several types of disbelief in gods.
No responsibilities imposed.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

I think you're playing fast and loose with the word "possible." Normally, most people take "possible" to means something more than just "not entirely ruled out."

When we're talking about the question of whether something we dream up exists "beyond human knowledge," the answer is always "we can't completely exclude the possibility, but we have no reason to believe that it exists... or even that it necessarily could exist."

(Unless the "something" is internally contradictory; in that case, we can say "no, that thing doesn't exist... not even off somewhere beyond our knowledge.")

And that answer is the same for anything we can dream up. You have no reason to give greater consideration to a god we know nothing about than to any other thing that you can't absolutely rule out as impossible.

All the stuff that could inform any suggestion of a god - religious scriptures, miracle claims, inference of god(s) from "nature", etc. - isn't available to inform your decision to elevate this god you know nothing about above all the other stuff you know nothing about, since by arguing that God is "beyond human knowledge," you're implying that everything within the scope of human knowledge edit: that purports to be knowledge of a god - including those religious sources - is entirely fabricated and is therefore absolutely useless to inform us about the god you're suggesting.

... so your "god beyond human knowledge" has nothing more going for it as something worth our consideration than anything else we can claim is "beyond human knowledge" and can't be excluded as false... including Russell's Teapot, Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage, and a planet on the far side of the galaxy that's ruled by a civilization of intelligent ice cream treats.

So what reason do you have to suggest that your creator-god deserves more of our attention and regard than the Klondike Bar Planet? None... because you've declared that nothing we could use to justify giving your god greater regard is available to us.

I don't mean "God" is beyond human knowledge...the mind of a possible God may be beyond human knowledge.
I don't know what you mean by "my" creator/god....it's not mine. It's simply a possibility because no one knows.
And there may be a Klondike Bar Planet. If the universe is infinite and the possibility of infinite universes then there are infinite possibilities. We just may not exist in that particular universe. Don't you find it pretty amazing and fictional that we are even here ? If we came into being, other things may also come into being in infinity. Our existence is as fantastical as anything we can create in our own minds. God may be a mind that is way above ours in capacity and capability. We don't know. It is possible. The fact that one can imagine God and has throughout time and history ( in fact, most people do believe in the possibility of God ) does give reason to believe. I don't agree about the idea of God being about language. It's about a higher power, a higher mind, that may have created this universe and humans, and possibly other universes. It's about how we came into being. You may think that contemplating or believing in a God that whose mind we may not be capable of understanding is futile or not logical, but that is just your view. Not right or wrong.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

What are you basing any of this on?

And I consider faith to be an evil. It is a dereliction of our duty to think for ourselves. it is believing something without sufficient reason to believe it and then refusing to acknowledge any contrary evidence. And that is simply self-deception.

That is your opinion. It certainly isn't mine. Who is right or wrong ? Neither. There is no right or wrong to either of our beliefs. I consider faith to be anti-evil. There is no argument. That is your view and I have my view. I am thinking for myself. And I have no deception of my self. So I simply completely disagree with you. That is thinking for myself. Or must I think in terms of yourself ?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

What are you basing any of this on?

I'm basing it on what I think in my mind , on all of my experiences in life , and on what I feel in my inner being. What do you base your opinions and views on ?

 

[Polymath257]

That is your opinion. It certainly isn't mine. Who is right or wrong ? Neither. There is no right or wrong to either of our beliefs. I consider faith to be anti-evil. There is no argument. That is your view and I have my view. I am thinking for myself. And I have no deception of my self. So I simply completely disagree with you. That is thinking for myself. Or must I think in terms of yourself ?

So, you at least agree that it can be reasonable to lack a belief in a deity?

 

[Polymath257]

I'm basing it on what I think in my mind , on all of my experiences in life , and on what I feel in my inner being. What do you base your opinions and views on ?

Observation, testing, and logic. Experience and intuition have been clearly shown to be insufficient without having testing and skepticism also.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't mean "God" is beyond human knowledge...the mind of a possible God may be beyond human knowledge.
I don't know what you mean by "my" creator/god....it's not mine. It's simply a possibility because no one knows.
And there may be a Klondike Bar Planet. If the universe is infinite and the possibility of infinite universes then there are infinite possibilities. We just may not exist in that particular universe. Don't you find it pretty amazing and fictional that we are even here ?

No, not fictional. Factual. It is amazing, I agree. But it isn't fiction.

If we came into being, other things may also come into being in infinity. Our existence is as fantastical as anything we can create in our own minds. God may be a mind that is way above ours in capacity and capability. We don't know. It is possible.

Possible, smossible. Who cares about *possible*? I want *truth*. Possible is an incredibly low bar.

The fact that one can imagine God and has throughout time and history ( in fact, most people do believe in the possibility of God ) does give reason to believe.

No more than it does with Santa Claus or unicorns.

I don't agree about the idea of God being about language. It's about a higher power, a higher mind, that may have created this universe and humans, and possibly other universes.

Well, that's *one* interpretation of the word 'God'. There are many others, though. Morality giver, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, first cause, etc.

It's about how we came into being.

Talk to your parents about that one. They should know how you came into being.

You may think that contemplating or believing in a God that whose mind we may not be capable of understanding is futile or not logical, but that is just your view. Not right or wrong.

And so it is a reasonable position. In fact, of course, the *default* position is the lack of belief. One needs *reason* to believe.

 

[PureX]

I think you should learn more.

Or more seriously......don't state an unasked opinion of things you don't know about.

Seriously.....how long have you been on this forum? And now you offer this?

edit: I'm being serious. You are stating that that you believe most atheists are "spirit blind" to the arts, to philosophy and imagination. And you find that anti-human? Have you actually been reading this forum?

I think you're letting your own defensiveness trip you up. Try considering the points being made, here, and the reasoning behind them, and then come back with some reasoned counterpoints.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, not fictional. Factual. It is amazing, I agree. But it isn't fiction.


Possible, smossible. Who cares about *possible*? I want *truth*. Possible is an incredibly low bar.


No more than it does with Santa Claus or unicorns.



Well, that's *one* interpretation of the word 'God'. There are many others, though. Morality giver, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, first cause, etc.



Talk to your parents about that one. They should know how you came into being.


And so it is a reasonable position. In fact, of course, the *default* position is the lack of belief. One needs *reason* to believe.

When I say how we came into being, I'm speaking of the first human beings. The first organic beings. Obviously I was born from my parents. There was once nothing at one time and then humans came to be out of the nothingness. Or perhaps we are eternal beings that have always existed in some form or another . That is another possibility. No one knows how we came into being. It is instinct to wonder and contemplate this. Every human that ever existed wonders about this. And they derive at the possibilities, It's fundamental to our very nature and existence. I know you disregard the realm of possibilities, I do not. Again truth is very subjective and different to each individual. We must have different ideas of what truth is. Again, neither is right or wrong, we just have different meanings on what truth is. Of course there are many interpretations of God...there are many interpretations off many things in life, including truth. I accept your views on truth as valid and real to you, even if they are not what I believe in. Can you do the same ? One may have their own personal "reasons" to believe in something, they don't have to be your reasons though. You say who cares about "possible", you want "truth." Well,many people care about "possible" and people have their own interpretation and idea of what is truth for them. You think "possible" is "low bar," well I think that statement and opinion is actually low bar. If "possible" is considered low bar than I am satisfied to be in the company of all the people who value the "possible", which includes many revered and highly intelligent human beings throughout history and the present. So I take that statement as a compliment. Everyone has their own world-view. Again, this is something that can't be invalidated. It's not your life to view, it's that individual's experience, life, views, opinions, beliefs, etc...It's not something that your views can change or render illegitimate. Just like no one can view your life for you and invalidate anything you are posting on this forum or anything you believe in to be true to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm basing it on what I think in my mind , on all of my experiences in life , and on what I feel in my inner being. What do you base your opinions and views on ?

So you're basing your opinions of a god "beyond human knowledge" on your own knowledge?

Do you see the problem here?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

So you're basing your opinions of a god "beyond human knowledge" on your own knowledge?

Do you see the problem here?[/QUOTE
Again, I am not saying the existence of a possible God is beyond human knowledge, I am saying the mind and composition of a possible God may be beyond our human knowledge in our current state of being. Perhaps we will come to know and understand a possible God in a different state of being at some time. I see no problem here whatsoever. And I have no knowledge of any of this, it is just a possibility idea. It is my opinion that these possibilities of the God whom I refer to may be a reality. It is all possible due to the fact that we don't know , if we knew then the possibility would not exist. And I find this to be amazing as it allows for one to imagine and contemplate these possibilities. That in itself is a very valuable concept to me in our nature and being. You may not believe in what I think. You may find a "problem" in what I think. But I wholeheartedly find no problem. And there is no right or wrong here.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

When I say how we came into being, I'm speaking of the first human beings. The first organic beings. Obviously I was born from my parents. There was once nothing at one time and then humans came to be out of the nothingness. Or perhaps we are eternal beings that have always existed in some form or another . That is another possibility. No one knows how we came into being. It is instinct to wonder and contemplate this. Every human that ever existed wonders about this. And they derive at the possibilities, It's fundamental to our very nature and existence. I know you disregard the realm of possibilities, I do not. Again truth is very subjective and different to each individual. We must have different ideas of what truth is. Again, neither is right or wrong, we just have different meanings on what truth is. Of course there are many interpretations of God...there are many interpretations of many things in life, including truth. I accept your views on truth as valid and real to you, even if they are not what I believe in. Can you do the same ? One may have their own personal "reasons" to believe in something, they don't have to be your reasons though. You say who cares about "possible", you want "truth." Well,many people care about "possible" and people have their own interpretation and idea of what is truth for them. You think "possible" is "low bar," well I think that statement and opinion is actually low bar. If "possible" is considered low bar than I am satisfied to be in the company of all the people who value the "possible", which includes many revered and highly intelligent human beings throughout history and the present. So I take that statement as a compliment. Everyone has their own world-view. Again, this is something that can't be invalidated. It's not your life to view, it's that individual's experience, life, views, opinions, beliefs, etc...It's not something that your views can change or render illegitimate. Just like no one can view your life for you and invalidate anything you are posting on this forum or anything you believe in to be true to you.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

So, you at least agree that it can be reasonable to lack a belief in a deity?

Absolutely. Do you agree it can be reasonable to believe in a deity ? My name on this forum is NoRightOrWrong...this is what I am referring to. Neither is right or wrong. They are our individual beliefs, and both are reasonable, of course.

 

[Polymath257]

When I say how we came into being, I'm speaking of the first human beings. The first organic beings. Obviously I was born from my parents. There was once nothing at one time and then humans came to be out of the nothingness. Or perhaps we are eternal beings that have always existed in some form or another . That is another possibility. No one knows how we came into being. It is instinct to wonder and contemplate this.

Yes, we *do* know how humans came to exist: we evolved from other great apes. We have the fossils.

Every human that ever existed wonders about this. And they derive at the possibilities, It's fundamental to our very nature and existence. I know you disregard the realm of possibilities, I do not.

And the question is largely solved. But it isn't solved through faith. it is solved by observation and testing of our ideas.

Again truth is very subjective and different to each individual. We must have different ideas of what truth is. Again, neither is right or wrong, we just have different meanings on what truth is.

Sorry, but you don't get to make up meanings for words as you choose. Truth is, by definition, something that doesn't depend on the individual. That is what makes it truth instead of opinion.

Of course there are many interpretations of God...there are many interpretations off many things in life, including truth. I accept your views on truth as valid and real to you, even if they are not what I believe in. Can you do the same ?

I can realize that you are misusing a word. And that you have definite *opinions*.

One may have their own personal "reasons" to believe in something, they don't have to be your reasons though. You say who cares about "possible", you want "truth." Well,many people care about "possible" and people have their own interpretation and idea of what is truth for them. You think "possible" is "low bar," well I think that statement and opinion is actually low bar. If "possible" is considered low bar than I am satisfied to be in the company of all the people who value the "possible", which includes many revered and highly intelligent human beings throughout history and the present. So I take that statement as a compliment. Everyone has their own world-view. Again, this is something that can't be invalidated. It's not your life to view, it's that individual's experience, life, views, opinions, beliefs, etc...It's not something that your views can change or render illegitimate. Just like no one can view your life for you and invalidate anything you are posting on this forum or anything you believe in to be true to you.

OK, your choice. There are so many different possibilities, that if we consider ALL of them seriously or even equally valid, then we will be sloshing through muck most of the time. Yes, mere possibility is a very low bar. Imagination is not the same as truth.

 

[Polymath257]

Absolutely. Do you agree it can be reasonable to believe in a deity ? My name on this forum is NoRightOrWrong...this is what I am referring to. Neither is right or wrong. They are our individual beliefs, and both are reasonable, of course.

I agree that it is an independent assumption. It isn't believed because of reason, though. It is believed because you *want* to believe it. Which is fine, but only because it is independent of anything else.

 

[Stevicus]

I disagree. The things that are not real not not exist. Unicorns do not actually exist. The *idea* of a unicorn exists. That idea is a real idea.

I am quite happy with theists if they admit that God has no more reality than unicorns or leprechauns.

I sometimes try to determine where the idea might have come from in the first place. I don't underestimate the abilities of the human imagination and our skill at conjuring up wild tales, but it's also interesting to see how it plays out in the human consciousness.

For example, the myth of Santa Claus is said to have an originated with a person who actually existed - even if the legends and folklore surrounding this individual grew to be wildly concocted.

It could be similar to UFO sightings. Somebody sees "something" and thinks it might be a flying saucer, even if what they saw was probably some man-made aircraft, not from outer space.

Perhaps 2000-3000 years from now, people will take the folklore and fiction from our era and turn it into some kind of "religion" or belief system. The pantheon of gods, goddesses, and other heroic characters will include Superman, Wonder Woman, Q, The Great Gazoo, Jeannie, and Yoda - among others.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

First before I get accused of plagiarism this thread is a copy done from memory of a write by William Craig, a famous Christian apologist. I couldn't find the original article which contained much more information. I will cut and paste the article if I ever find it.


Well the definition of atheism is difficult or easy depending on the emotional make up of the atheist one asks to define themselves. (lol, I used the word emotional as a substitute for psychological make up. Its an friendly in house sarcasm).

The big question is atheism a view or a psychological condition? If atheism is taken to be a view, like the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. What about the atheists who freely say that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof? Those guys attempt to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition. And psychological conditions can make no assertions. I agree with Craig who says these self named atheists are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities. Don't ask me why I know that is true!

; {>

This atheist is also agnostic. I don't believe in gods, but don't claim to know that they don't exist. That makes me both atheistic and agnostic. The agnostic atheist has no burden of proof. He is merely telling you that he doesn't believe in gods.

The atheist that goes further to claim that gods do not exist has made an existential claim about gods that earns him a burden of proof if he wants to be believed. That atheist is not agnostic.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Yes, we *do* know how humans came to exist: we evolved from other great apes. We have the fossils.


And the question is largely solved. But it isn't solved through faith. it is solved by observation and testing of our ideas.



Sorry, but you don't get to make up meanings for words as you choose. Truth is, by definition, something that doesn't depend on the individual. That is what makes it truth instead of opinion.


I can realize that you are misusing a word. And that you have definite *opinions*.


OK, your choice. There are so many different possibilities, that if we consider ALL of them seriously or even equally valid, then we will be sloshing through muck most of the time. Yes, mere possibility is a very low bar. Imagination is not the same as truth.

I disagree with much of what you just posted. I answered your question that I can agree that the lack of belief of a Deity is reasonable, why did you not answer my question if you can agree that the belief in a Deity is also reasonable. And as far as evolution , fossils, and humans coming from apes...none of that is fact. The more scientists discover the more the idea of evolution is being seen as having many flaws and inconsistencies. And I am speaking completely in the view of scientific study and reasoning. Darwin himself admitted to problems of one species actually becoming another KIND of species. Species variation seems reasonable but not evolution in many minds of scientists who have no regards for an Intelligent Designer or not. Fossils do not show one species becoming another KIND of species There are many inconsistencies and flaws in the fossil record as holding the proof of evolution . Evolution is not even a theory because it cannot be tested. So a definite conclusion cannot be drawn. Many ideas in science change as new discoveries and research is made. You need to really study this more. Science is increasingly pointing to an Intelligent Designer based solely on pure scientific study. Scientists that once thought the idea of evolution to be fact have completely changed their views based on their life long intense study of it. You would have to research this for yourself as it is very intricate scientific study and discovery. You might be amazed at what you will find out. One founder of the DNA molecule has come to a conclusion of the probability of an Intelligent Designer based on the findings of his work with DNA. And there are many. many examples of scientists coming to this probability based on many different areas is science. It's there if you are willing to look.

 

[PureX]

I sometimes try to determine where the idea might have come from in the first place. I don't underestimate the abilities of the human imagination and our skill at conjuring up wild tales, but it's also interesting to see how it plays out in the human consciousness.

For example, the myth of Santa Claus is said to have an originated with a person who actually existed - even if the legends and folklore surrounding this individual grew to be wildly concocted.

It could be similar to UFO sightings. Somebody sees "something" and thinks it might be a flying saucer, even if what they saw was probably some man-made aircraft, not from outer space.

Perhaps 2000-3000 years from now, people will take the folklore and fiction from our era and turn it into some kind of "religion" or belief system. The pantheon of gods, goddesses, and other heroic characters will include Superman, Wonder Woman, Q, The Great Gazoo, Jeannie, and Yoda - among others.

The process and the intent are not that mysterious (nor foolish). What you're referring to is mythology, and it's a well documented subject these days, thanks to people like Joseph Campbell. Read on of his books on the subject and you will discover a whole new world of human ideals and expression that you previously thought were just 'fairy tales and fantasies'. Once you understand them, you will see that they are far from it.

 

[Mister Silver]

The process and the intent are not that mysterious (nor foolish). What you're referring to is mythology, and it's a well documented subject these days, thanks to people like Joseph Campbell. Read on of his books on the subject and you will discover a whole new world of human ideals and expression that you previously thought were just 'fairy tales and fantasies'. Once you understand them, you will see that they are far from it.

Reading his works, much like having read the bible, merely reaffirmed my atheism.