I see no value in atheism

[Typist]

Atheism does not need to pop magically, nor to justify itself. It never did, nor could it ever do - unless actual evidence for some form of deity is produced, I suppose.

Please review post #978.

I see no value in atheism | Page 49 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[LuisDantas]

Right, thank you, atheism is based on the lack of evidence.

1) The atheist applies their human reason to the question.

2) By doing so they are assuming human reason is binding on the question.

Are we? That is some pretty fancy wording for "being rational". But atheism does not even need any rational justification at all, either. It is just an absence.

3) Where is the proof that this is true?

There is no need for any proof, but in certain circunstances it can be produced, usually in the form of the argument from evil or of contradictions in the alleged deities.

Please consider what human reason actually is, and what the God claim actually is.

Human reason is the poorly developed ability of a single semi-suicidal species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies. A species only recently living in caves, a species with thousands of hair trigger nukes aimed down it's own throat, a well known ever pending existential extinction threat it rarely finds interesting enough to discuss.

And with a very self-evident knack for inventing fictional beings, a point that is very relevant for this discussion. As is the equally obvious knack for unhealthy beliefs and emotional attachments.

The God claim is a proposal about the ultimate nature of all reality.

Not always, as it turns out. The idea that a God must be connected to some attempt at explanation for everything that is is far from universal.

Also, calling it a "proposal" is quite a bit generous, being the non-answer that it actually is. There are probably languages out there where "deity" and "mystery" share the same word. We should consider reintroducing one such word and adopting it for religious practice, come to think of it. It would be healthy, regenerative.

So, this one little half insane species on one tiny planet in one of billions of galaxies thinks the rule system it has developed is binding on everything everywhere (a realm it can't even define in the most basic manner) and thus upon any gods who may or may not reside within.

That is a very good argument for doubting any claims about a creator god, you realize. Particularly those considered creators of existence itself.

Now it could possibly be true that human reason is binding everywhere. Just as the Bible could possibly be true.

Just about the same odds, I agree. Except that I don't think I have ever learned of anyone who thinks of human reason as "binding" in a supernatural sense. That would be odd.

Reason is pragmatically necessary and far more reliable than the alternative. It is not a supernatural belief, though.

But there is no compelling evidence to prove either.

Thus the entire debate is faith based on all sides.

You must have misunderstood what reason is and what it means, to say such a thing.

And finally...

Theists generally get this.

Atheists generally don't.

Because it is wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please review post #978.

I see no value in atheism | Page 49 | ReligiousForums.com

Yeah, I was answering it while you posted this. See above.

 

[Typist]

Yeah, I was answering it while you posted this. See above.

Thank you for answering, but you didn't actually address my comments at all, though I believe you sincerely feel you did.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Right, thank you, atheism is based on the lack of evidence.

1) The atheist applies their human reason to the question.

2) By doing so they are assuming human reason is binding on the question.

No they aren't. They're just assuming that human reasoning is a tool they have at their disposal with which to address the question. They don't have to see it as "binding", whatever that means.

Please consider what human reason actually is, and what the God claim actually is.

Reasoning, broadly speaking, is a process whereby we reach a conclusion via the application of formal logic to a question, and adjust our views and conclusions based on what is indicated by the available facts. In other words, reasoning is when we reach a conclusion based on facts, rather than interpreting facts to fit a conclusion.

The God claim is any claim about the existence of any entity, spirit or force that can accurately be described as a God (i.e: a supernatural, intelligent agency responsible for the creation and/or maintenance of the Universe or some aspect of the Universe).

Human reason is the poorly developed ability of a single semi-suicidal species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies.

Human reasoning has lead to realisation of a great many objective truths about our Universe. To dismiss it merely because it hasn't reached nigh-impossible heights is the definition of short-sightedness.

A species only recently living in caves, a species with thousands of hair trigger nukes aimed down it's own throat, a well known ever pending existential extinction threat it rarely finds interesting enough to discuss.

The God claim is a proposal about the ultimate nature of all reality.

So, this one little half insane species on one tiny planet in one of billions of galaxies thinks the rule system it has developed is binding on everything everywhere (a realm it can't even define in the most basic manner) and thus upon any gods who may or may not reside within.

Good thing you're completely exempt from that then, eh? I don't doubt you have the ability to raise above us mere mortal humans with your vastly superior intellect, but unfortunately the rest of us simply have to make do with what we have.

Now it could possibly be true that human reason is binding everywhere. Just as the Bible could possibly be true.

But there is no compelling evidence to prove either.

Thus the entire debate is faith based on all sides.

Except for the people who don't make assumptions based on faith, and withhold belief until such a time as they have a good reason not to. But, lemme guess, you're one of these miraculous, special people who rise above this "basic logic" thing, right?

And finally...

Theists generally get this.

Atheists generally don't.

The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to and patronize both. Well done!

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you for answering, but you didn't actually address my comments at all, though I believe you sincerely feel you did.

Are you sure I did not address them by disregarding them?

 

[Typist]

No they aren't. They're just assuming that human reasoning is a tool they have at their disposal with which to address the question. They don't have to see it as "binding", whatever that means.

Having a tool at one's disposal says nothing about whether that tool is qualified for the job at hand. Even if that tool is better than all other tools, it still doesn't tell us whether that tool is qualified for the job at hand.

Another very simple thing which has to be explained to forum atheists over and over, all day long, and twice on Sunday.

Human reasoning has lead to realisation of a great many objective truths about our Universe. To dismiss it merely because it hasn't reached nigh-impossible heights is the definition of short-sightedness.

I didn't dismiss reason, I'm using it. Try it, you might like it!

1) There is no compelling evidence for the existence of a God, therefore you decline to believe in the existence of such an entity.

2) There is no compelling evidence human reason is binding on all of reality, therefore I decline to believe in the existence of such an ability.

All I'm doing here is selling you the very principles which you embrace in every thread on this subject, and you are rejecting those principles when they don't lead to the conclusion you desire.

That's not reason.

It's ideology.

 

[Typist]

Are you sure I did not address them by disregarding them?

I like wanking as much as the next guy, but I guess I'll leave your wanking to you. Enjoy!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Having a tool at one's disposal says nothing about whether that tool is qualified for the job at hand.

You're right. The accuracy and reliability of a tool is determined by the results of its application. As it currently stands, human reasoning is demonstrated to be the most reliable tool we have at our disposal for analysing the world around us. It has produced more objective, tangible effects through the application of the scientific method than any other method of human inquiry has thus far.

Even if that tool is better than all other tools, it still doesn't tell us whether that tool is qualified for the job at hand.

But if it's the best tool you have for a particular job, why use any other, less reliable, tool? The point is that it is the best thing we have currently, so why not use it?

Another very simple thing which has to be explained to forum atheists over and over, all day long, and twice on Sunday.

You're right. Continuing to be rude and patronizing is the best method of reasonable debate.

I didn't dismiss reason, I'm using it. Try it, you might like it!

See above.

1) There is no compelling evidence for the existence of a God, therefore you decline to believe in the existence of such an entity.

Correct.

2) There is no compelling evidence human reason is binding on all of reality, therefore I decline to believe in the existence of such an ability.

Sure. Me too - provided you give an explanation as to exactly that "binding on all of reality" means.

All I'm doing here is selling you the very principles which you embrace in every thread on this subject, and you are rejecting those principles when they don't lead to the conclusion you desire.

Where did you get that idea from? What principles am I rejecting? Since you haven't even asked what principles I accept and reject, this is an ridiculous thing to say.

 

[Willamena]

Everyone seems content with the definition of theism lending itself to define the theist. Atheist is the same, it's informed by atheism, not the by theism or theists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Everyone seems content with the definition of theism lending itself to define the theist. Atheist is the same, it's informed by atheism, not the by theism or theists.

I'm really not sure what you mean. What do you mean by theism "lending itself to define the theist"?

 

[Willamena]

Are you seriously suggesting that the American Atheists organization are the de facto deciders of what constitutes and atheist, what atheists should believe, and what should be considered atheistic?

No, they're just an authority.

 

[Willamena]

So, do you believe in the existence of the Tragmaflagmavore?

As far as it's what I call my left little toe, sure.

 

[Willamena]

Are we? That is some pretty fancy wording for "being rational". But atheism does not even need any rational justification at all, either. It is just an absence.

Some people object when you propose that their beliefs are entirely irrational.

 

[Willamena]

I'm really not sure what you mean. What do you mean by theism "lending itself to define the theist"?

Theism is belief in god; theist is those who believe in god, i.e. "do" theism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, they're just an authority.

Not even that. They're just an ideological group. There's no "authority" within atheism, in the traditional sense.

As far as it's what I call my left little toe, sure.

I'm gonna have to look that one up. Will there be pictures?

Theism is belief in god; theist is those who believe in god, i.e. "do" theism.

Okay. So, is there a problem with the definition of atheism being those who don't "do" theism?

 

[outhouse]

Right, thank you, atheism is based on the lack of evidence.

Just the opposite, theism is faith based not atheism.


I have evidence your deity was created by many different men who changed the concept at will to meet cultural needs.

I have evidence they combined two deities into one.

People have a long history of plagiarizing mythology.

 

[Willamena]

Not even that. They're just an ideological group. There's no "authority" within atheism, in the traditional sense.

You deny them, but they are still an authority.

Okay. So, is there a problem with the definition of atheism being those who don't "do" theism?

Yes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You deny them, but they are still an authority.

An "authority" requires some sort of administrative power or expertise. American Atheists isn't an administrator of atheism, and as atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God and has no principles, tenets, doctrine or even shared philosophy, you can't really be an "expert" on atheism.

Yes.

And what is that?

 

[McBell]

Do you accept the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds?

Fyi..I am using the definition of atheism as quoted here...Aims and Purposes | American Atheists

ROTFLMAO

I do not subscribe to the group calling them selves American Atheists.
Nor do I recognize them as having anything more than a group specific anything other than a lack of belief in deities.

Just as there are numerous groups of theists, there are numerous groups of atheists.