It is difficult to describe atheism - True ?

[Sabio]

No - it is not evidence of anything

Then getting back to the subject of atheism, does "evidence" mean (to an atheist) only empirical evidence? Is this part of the atheist's belief's?

Sabio

 

[Pah]

Then getting back to the subject of atheism, does "evidence" mean (to an atheist) only empirical evidence? Is this part of the atheist's belief's?

Sabio

For existence (and tailored to Christianity), I think we have

* The Bible
* Personal revelation that confirms the Bible or even advances faith beyond the literal word. This would include the writings of the Early Church fathers and pronouncements from Spiritual leaders.

Evidence for non-existence

* Contradictions in the literal Bible with the thought that a powerful God would make sure his Word (and translation) was clear, unambigious, logical to readers, and scientifically accurate - not needing interpretation
* The absence of an historical Jesus
* The pluracy of Biblical translations
* Conflicting theology within the Body of Christ
* The success of Scientology which was created on a bet

The evidence from science and scholarship includes

* The study of mythology as coordinated by Joseph Campbell
* The advancements of science to explain how a possible God did something
* The recent advancements of socio evolution showing how God was created which include
o the beginnings of language
o the evolution of morality
o The evolution of law apart from morality
o The study of child development which leads to confirm socio evolution
o The study of society's beginnings
* The philosophy of Locke in the 1st book of his Essay on Human Understanding
* The religious experience I have had (anecdotal)

You tell me if it contains empirical evidence

 

[Sabio]

To answer the original question: I "do" think it is difficult (if not impossible) to describe atheism. There appears to be no defined set of identifying beliefs among atheists other than the assertion that there is no God.

I thought that Ceridwen had the best answers from the atheist's viewpoint.

Sabio

 

[Pah]

To answer the original question: I "do" think it is difficult (if not impossible) to describe atheism. There appears to be no defined set of identifying beliefs among atheists other than the assertion that there is no God.

I thought that Ceridwen had the best answers from the atheist's viewpoint.

Sabio

That's like me saying Methodists have the best answers.

 

[Sabio]

That's like me saying Methodists have the best answers.

Which you have every right to believe...

Sabio

 

[Ceridwen018]

So would I be safe to say that atheism is not a "belief system" at all, but rather "absence of belief" (in God)?

Absolutely.

Or when an atheist says they do not believe there is a God:
A) They mean that sufficient evidence has not been provided for them to believe, but given the right evidence they would believe.
B) Defending the position that God does not exist has "become" a "belief system".

I would say that both of those are basically correct. However, many different atheists reject gods for many different reasons. For an atheist to defend their position that god does not exist they would be implementing personal philosophies, opinions, and observations. I wouldn't say that they're using a "belief system".

Regarding (A) above; what kind of evidence or proof would an atheist need to believe that God exists?

Mmm...I'd have to think about that for awhile.

Since you have already said that atheism is not a religion, would I be safe to assume then that it is impossible to proselitize when speaking to an atheist?

The definition of poselytize is "to induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith", as found at Dictionary.com. So yes, I think it is perfectly possible to proselytize when speaking to an atheist.

For the record, I think that a thread on Cosmology would be a grand idea.

 

[Sabio]

Absolutely.


I would say that both of those are basically correct. However, many different atheists reject gods for many different reasons. For an atheist to defend their position that god does not exist they would be implementing personal philosophies, opinions, and observations. I wouldn't say that they're using a "belief system".

Mmm...I'd have to think about that for awhile.

The definition of poselytize is "to induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith", as found at Dictionary.com. So yes, I think it is perfectly possible to proselytize when speaking to an atheist.

For the record, I think that a thread on Cosmology would be a grand idea.

Thank you for your answers. I think a thread on Cosmology would be great, but even better would be a debate thread where all of the various arguments for and against the existence of God can be expressed and debated.

Sabio

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Regarding (A) above; what kind of evidence or proof would an atheist need to believe that God exists?

That depends on two things:
1) Which god(s) you refer to, and
2) the philosophy of the individual atheist

As a philosophical naturalist and skeptic, I would require a definition of god which makes observable (and thus falsifiable) predictions.....however, it is not possible for supernatural causes to make falsifiable predictions (which is why science confines itself only to natural causes). Thus, since gods are defined (traditionally, at least) as supernatural, it is impossible for there to be evidence which would indicate either that gods do or do not exist. My stance on this is exactly the same for the Abrahamic god as it is for Zeus, Thor, and all supernatural entities/claims.

Consider the following: what kind of evidence would you need to believe that Zeus exists? If you ponder this question, I think you'll see where I'm coming from. My stance regarding the Abrahamic god is probably identical to your stance regarding all of the other gods.

 

[Sabio]

That depends on two things:
1) Which god(s) you refer to, and
2) the philosophy of the individual atheist

Thanks for your answer Mr_Spinkles,

I'll define it a little better
1) Abrahamic God
2) Your philosophy

Sabio

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sabio-- Erm, I think I covered my philosophy and my beliefs regarding the Abrahamic God in my previous post. Great questions, by the way.

 

[justa_gurl]

It is quite difficult to be an atheist without using religious terms to describe it. After well over a thousand years of religious domination, our very language has been usurped. All traces of our previous social activities and rituals have been deliberately excised from the language even if most of the activities themselves still remain.

He must truly be a miserable man, trying to reformulate the whole of language just so his experiences and beliefs in no way resemble religious influences. I mean good grief.. What is so astounding about atheism that all the subtle changes in language that have formed and reformed the whole of human experience throughout history, is not good enough to formulate his philosophy? <giggles

Defining atheism can be quite simple. It is just a term like many others. The easiest method is just to speak truthfully and in a clear context. If you find yourself making special excuses, lengthy disortations or using obscure and misunderstood references that contradict most dictionarys in order to clarify, than yeah i can see why it would be considered tricky.

 

[Valjean]

Three+ pages generated on such a simple, clear, non-issue?!

There is nothing complicated about atheism. Atheists don't have any need to describe or justify it.

Atheism is the epistemological default position. It is any other belief that begs explanation and justification.

Do you feel any need to explain your non-belief in Mother Goose? --- QED!

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Three+ pages generated on such a simple, clear, non-issue?!

There is nothing complicated about atheism. Atheists don't have any need to describe or justify it.

Atheism is the epistemological default position. It is any other belief that begs explanation and justification.

Do you feel any need to explain your non-belief in Mother Goose? --- QED!

Frubals to you. Great post.

 

[michel]

Actually the point about atheism and religious terminology is rather apt - in that my wife, who I have come to the conclusion is actually at the atheist end of agnostic had the reaction of "That was a miracle" when the plane crashed in Canada a couple of days ago.


I think that has become 'common parlance' in speech..........

 

[justa_gurl]

There is nothing complicated about atheism. Atheists don't have any need to describe or justify it.

Atheism is the epistemological default position. It is any other belief that begs explanation and justification.

Technically speaking, no belief or opinion requires definition or justification. However... unless the rules of discourse have changed, arguing that position does suggest one has the ability to defend it. Unless of course, your intent is to use it as a platform for attack rather than for any form of intelligent discussion...

I'd love to hear how atheism is the "epistemological default position" but i fear that truth is also so profoundly self-evident that it doesn't require "explaination and justification" and i'll be left out on my bum too swamped in social and psychological influences to figure it out for myself.

 

[michel]

Technically speaking, no belief or opinion requires definition or justification. However... unless the rules of discourse have changed, arguing that position does suggest one has the ability to defend it. Unless of course, your intent is to use it as a platform for attack rather than for any form of intelligent discussion...

I'd love to hear how atheism is the "epistemological default position" but i fear that truth is also so profoundly self-evident that it doesn't require "explaination and justification" and i'll be left out on my bum too swamped in social and psychological influences to figure it out for myself.

That's the reason why I didn't ask!

 

[Valjean]

I'd love to hear how atheism is the "epistemological default position" but i fear that truth is also so profoundly self-evident that it doesn't require "explaination and justification" and i'll be left out on my bum too swamped in social and psychological influences to figure it out for myself.

Two approaches to knowledge -- "default positions."

1: Begin by accepting all things as real and rule out each unreal thing by observation and experimentation.

2: Begin by accepting nothing as real and add things to your world as observation and experimentation produces evidence for them.

Option #1 would be a huge undertaking, as the set of all possible things is essentially infinite. Even if we gave an infinite number of philosophers an infinite time to accomplish this, in the end we'd still be left believing in Marduk, insubstantial unicorns and Little green men from Mars.
Many, if not most things cannot logically be disproved.

Option #2 is the approach we actually use, for the most part. We're born knowing very little and construct a world as we amass empirical data. We disbelieve in most things that we have no evidence for.

I'd hold that it is not reasonable to begin by accepting all things as real without a shred of evidence for their existence. Option #2 is the only logical default position.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

I'd hold that it is not reasonable to begin by accepting all things as real without a shred of evidence for their existence. Option #2 is the only logical default position.

Oh don't go using logic on them. That's just mean. Excellent post.


One of the things that makes religion so enjoyable to me, is the fact that I can take what exists in my heart and in my imagination, and make it real through religious practice. The concepts I create to govern my worldview are indicative of my own experience. I apply them to a world that I imagine and feel in my heart. I would never ask that anyone believe in gods or spirits or heavens and hells. That'd be silly. All I have ever asked anyone is to consider creating for themselves a faith in something, because they can, and because it is enjoyable. It's been a staple of civilization for 6 thousand years. Kind of like prostitution and politics. Sure, bad company, but still.

 

[justa_gurl]

Two approaches to knowledge -- "default positions."

1: Begin by accepting all things as real and rule out each unreal thing by observation and experimentation.

2: Begin by accepting nothing as real and add things to your world as observation and experimentation produces evidence for them.

I'd hold that it is not reasonable to begin by accepting all things as real without a shred of evidence for their existence. Option #2 is the only logical default position.

"The first step is to know what a belief is. It is
to make the discovery, perhaps startling to
many today, that a report over the radio of the
latest scientific discovery adds, not to one's
scientific knowledge, but to one's beliefs."
Insight, by Bernard Lonergan, S.J.
​

Logical... perhaps but i'm not certain it's altogether wise.
To start with nothing is a troublesome philosophy to say the least. How is it you're not crushed by the burdon of proof for all things and never believe in anything if that were the case? Surely things exist before and despite your ability to contemplate them?

There's far more to the human experience than that which you can shove into a logical handbasket. It's an important tool, no question there. But it's no holy grail of understanding. Mighty logic too can fail us thanks to slight and undetectable imperfections in our 'knowledge'. It's the unfortunate result of being human.

Even science itself is not dependant on answers, but rather on theory and innovation which through trial and error pushes us further into understanding. It's the beauty of man to improvise, hypothosize and innovate on what isn't known that we might come to know. Seems quite a pitty to disregard that enitrely for the holy quest of an ever illusive proof.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Logical... perhaps but i'm not certain it's altogether wise.
To start with nothing is a troublesome philosophy to say the least. How is it you're not crushed by the burdon of proof for all things and never believe in anything if that were the case? Surely things exist before and despite your ability to contemplate them?

You should read David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects. Beginning with nothing isn't a matter of choice. It's simply a reality. You were not born with the innate idea of God. You had to have learned it somewhere. Most likely from your parents. From there, without objective experience, you were forced to use your imagination to create, in your own mind, an image which corresponded to the idea of "God". Now, whatever you experience that corresponds to your imagined image of God will be interpreted as God. However, if you had never developed the belief in God in the first place, those same things which you naturally conclude are God, would be concluded to be something else entirely, because the abstracts never would have been developed. Therefore, to begin with an idea of God is impossible. You must first create an idea of God in your imagination and from there establish its' correspondences. Even you began with nothing.

To indulge the imagination (to develop faith), is a matter of individual proclivity, not necessity or reason. It's fancy. It is neither wise or unwise to assume the existence of divinity, as it is neither wise or unwise to believe in Love, Truth or Eternity. We imagine these things to exist, we place our faith in them, because they help explain and explore certain intellectual, emotional and spiritual dispositions and experiences.

There's far more to the human experience than that which you can shove into a logical handbasket. It's an important tool, no question there. But it's no holy grail of understanding. Mighty logic too can fail us thanks to slight and undetectable imperfections in our 'knowledge'. It's the unfortunate result of being human.

Whatever weakness exist in Logic, doesn't give us cause to believe there is any strength in faith. If there is any benefit in faith, it is not necessarily in any wisdom that either may or may not be produced. The benefit of faith is indulgence. To believe in our hopes.

Even science itself is not dependant on answers, but rather on theory and innovation which through trial and error pushes us further into understanding. It's the beauty of man to improvise, hypothosize and innovate on what isn't known that we might come to know. Seems quite a pitty to disregard that enitrely for the holy quest of an ever illusive proof.

The question isn't of ever illusive proof. The question is about whether we begin with an established religious paradigm handed down to us from churches and parents and cultures, or if we begin with nothing and work our way towards establishing a world view predicated upon our own experience, instead of the dogmas of others. Even if you begin with nothing, that is not to say that you will not develop your own faiths and dogmas, it simply means that your beliefs begin with your own experience and not the mythologies and paradigms of others. Proof is simply the highest standard of judgment. So in the most important cases, when a belief really matters, why would one not employ the highest standard of judgment?