Search for Truth: Atheism

[waitasec]

Ah huh...and setting aside the fact that the ‘enlightenment’ represents neither a ‘community’ nor a ‘charity’.......the Enlightenment cannot be separated from the impetus of the Renaissance nor the Renaissance from the influence of religion. Things are connected...and one thing leads to another.

the enlightenment enabled these movements....sorry to disappoint

yes you are right the oppression religion caused lead to the age of enlightenment.

 

[Dan4reason]

I'm new here. When I first saw your nick, saw your subject of choice and read some of what you had written, I thought you might be another "Dan," Dan Barker. If you know who he is, you will probably take that as a compliment.

Have you considered that propositional truth is simply a matter of utility? Propositions are not useful because they are true, but true because they are useful; and perceived usefulness is relative to perceived needs and desires. To speak of truth in an absolute sense is to speak in terms of actual needs and desires, about which we can only speculate -- rationally, anyway.

Personally, I think all propositional frameworks for reality are simply models; and over the course of our lives we adopt, refine and discard them as our perceptions of their usefulness changes. The wise man knows that his ideas about life must remain operational; he must always remain open to new information or he is not being honest with himself. I think this point in particular is difficult for Christians and adherents of other exclusivist ways of thinking, because such people often feel that to allow for the possibility that they are wrong is to betray the truth -- rather than simply recognizing that they are fallible, that they could be wrong, but that they choose to believe such-and-such to be true. Of course, atheists not infrequently make the same mistake.

Very well spoken.

I do agree that logic and all processes we use are operational and that is the perspective of many atheists. Others view these as a little more than that, but nearly all atheists can agree that faith in mythology is not a good way of obtaining truths.

 

[Dan4reason]

Yes, I am agnostic... but as someone else covered, theism/ atheism are different concepts from gnosticism/ agnosticism.

"Theism" is the belief in the existence of god(s); "Atheism" is the lack of belief.

"Gnosticism" is the belief that the existence of god(s) is a knowable thing; "Agnosticism" the lack of belief.

Does that make sense?

I completely agree. But what is the difference between a person who considers himself exclusively agnostic and one who seems himself as excusively atheist?

 

[Dan4reason]

I would argue that atheism is lack of belief "after" consideration of the possibility of the existance of god (not "with no" consideration).

That is atheism stripped to its bare essentials however, I have come to observed that this view is too dry and boring to be enough. They start adding beliefs into their philosophical systems. For example, some believe that there IS not God, others, that science holds the answers, some also think that religion or religious people have a certain amount of malevolence to them.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is atheism stripped to its bare essentials however, I have come to observed that this view is too dry and boring to be enough.

No....dry & boring is enuf for me. Other heathens can have other views.

 

[McBell]

The topic here is atheism and whether it holds some truth.

How do you go about measuring this 'truth'?
Even before you go measuring it, how do you recognize the 'truth' from the bull ****?

 

[Alceste]

In a string of threads I want to analyse different religions, and non-religions to see which ones hold some grain of truth. There is often a variety of beliefs in each belief group so believers can even debate among each other.

The topic here is atheism and whether it holds some truth. I will be doing some research to see the diversity of beliefs among atheists and the arguments for and against it.

One problem with atheism is that it often turns out to be negative often consisting of merely attacking religion and not providing and searching for answers on its own. Atheists should focus more on explaining things with science and reason and not attacking all the time.

Apologies for responding before reading the thread (I will go back after), but I don't see that as a problem. Atheism is literally "that which is not theism". By itself, it is meaningless. "Atheism" can not search for answers. Skepticism can, and empiricism can. Secular humanism can. Atheism, though, can not help us answer a single question apart from "do you believe in a deity or deities?"

Of course that is not to say that many major atheists talk about and defend science and it is important to address religious claims. I just think atheists need more balance between positive belief and negative disbelief.

Atheism =/= science and theism =/= religion. We would all be better off if we understood this.

 

[Dan4reason]

How do you go about measuring this 'truth'?
Even before you go measuring it, how do you recognize the 'truth' from the bull ****?

That is one of the toughest question in the word. In my opinion, there is no perfect way to do this but one method is mathematics. If something does not make sense mathematically, there is a good chance it is wrong. Also, the rules of logic help people find truth statements and false statements. There is also a method by evidence in which we collect stuff from the materal world and try to see the conclusions they support. If further evidence supports these concusions even more, the idea starts to gain the confidence of people. Another method is trust. We find someone who knows what she is doing and trust her conclusions (to a certain extent).

 

[Alceste]

and religious charities usually have an ulterior motive...

Yes, but sometimes it works the other way around - people with a genuine desire to help improve the lot of their fellow human beings are often drawn to religions that have organized a method for putting these intentions into meaningful action immediately, because there is no other outlet for these impulses. For example, my cousin's path into humanitarian work passed through the Mennonites in the early stages because that was the only outlet available to her. She currently works for the UN, which is non-religious. This was a natural progression - the more experience she gained working in disaster areas, the more she familiarized herself with other outlets. She could not have applied for a job with the UN with nothing but a heartfelt desire to help her fellow human beings, but for the Mennonites, that was enough.

 

[Alceste]

You believe in evolution don't you? Can you prove that (I am not saying that evolution is atheistic)?

After reading the Greatest Show on Earth, I believe I can argue for it extremely convincingly. Proof is for mathematicians.

Some atheists say that there is no God, others say that they simply don't believe in God. I find the latter to be more reasonable. Do you?

Yes. The word "god" is meaningless, except as a subjective concept in which we can either believe or not.

Of course that is true. However even among civil atheists there seems to be this spirit of disproof rather than making positive claims. This does not make atheism wrong, I just wish atheists would try to do more to replace supernatural explanations with science. It isn't that atheists don't do this at all, they just need to do this more.

More? How much more could science do to replace the supernatural beliefs of theists with positive claims? No, God didn't make the world (physics). No, God didn't make us (biology). No, the world isn't 6000 years old (geology). No, God does not speak to us directly (psychology). No, we are not all descended from a single pair of Jews (linguistics, anthropology) It seems to me that all the major bases are covered.

What religious explanation do you feel empiricism has not touched upon?

 

[Alceste]

That would make you agnostic

No, an agnostic is convinced the question of god's existence is fundamentally insoluble.

 

[Alceste]

difficult to answer because, as an atheist, I don't really hold any beliefs. Just a collection of disbeliefs. If you are really asking what I “believe in”, as an engineer I would have to say it would be things I can prove or that have been proven. I don’t believe this answer will give you any insights or help you in any way to achieve your goal.

I don’t think that most atheists “attack” religion. Most of us “question” religion, which may seem offensive to some believers. The reason (I assume) that the theist feels offended or oppressed by questions on faith is due to their faith demand belief without question (after all, that’s why it’s called “faith”). But from the atheist perspective the only way to truly understand something is to question it, and keep questioning it until you find an answer that makes some sense to you.

The reason that I am here is because it fascinates me that so many people in the world can believe in things that there is clearly no proof of. I’m hoping to understand why people believe the things they do.

I attack any statements that appear to me to be illogical, irrational or contrary to empirical evidence. It is a mere matter of coincidence that most such claims happen to be religious.

In fact, I've even attacked the notorious Pharyngula for making statements against herbal medicine that are illogical, irrational and contrary to empirical evidence.

 

[Alceste]

The way I perceive the differences is Atheism is lack of belief with no consideration of the possibility that one exists, pretty much complete indifference, whereas Agnosticism is the lack of belief but will not dismiss the possibility. Some people consider the two terms to be synonymous. I do not. Of course thats just my outlook, I've been known to be wrong from time to time

Actually, "agnosticism" is a specific theological position: it is impossible to answer the question of whether or not god exists.

I don't believe it is impossible to answer this question, therefore I cannot be an agnostic.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Actually, "agnosticism" is a specific theological position: it is impossible to answer the question of whether or not god exists.

I don't believe it is impossible to answer this question, therefore I cannot be an agnostic.

Again with this... :sarcastic

The term “Atheism” is defined as “the belief that God does not exist”. Notice the word “belief”. That means that being an Atheist does not in any way indicate knowledge about the non-existence of god.

Likewise, the term “Theism” is defined as “belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe”. That last part of the sentence is important because it represents the dividing line between a Theist and a Deist. But like in the Atheism example, the active word is “belief”, not knowledge.

The word Gnostic comes from the Greek “gnostikos” and means “to know”, and likewise the connotation “Agnostic” means “not to know”. Therefore someone who considers themselves to be a Gnostic implies that they are absolutely certain about the subject at hand, while someone who uses the term Agnostic implies that they are not certain. This leads to the conclusion that no-one is “just” an Atheist or a Theist, and similarly that no-one is just an Agnostic or a Gnostic, at least in relation to this subject.

So, to sum up, one is either an Agnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist or a Gnostic Theist. The first word implies the certainty with which you hold your position and the second implies the position itself. It’s as simple as that. Still, this position might change depending on which god one is talking about. Unless one was to find that a person believes in all gods everywhere (there are thousands of religions, some with thousands of gods), that person is an Atheist with regards to some, usually most, gods.

 

[LuisDantas]

Again with this... :sarcastic

The term “Atheism” is defined as “the belief that God does not exist”. Notice the word “belief”. That means that being an Atheist does not in any way indicate knowledge about the non-existence of god.

What it really means is that you are either unaware or unaccepting of the concept of weak atheism.

 

[Alceste]

What it really means is that you are either unaware or unaccepting of the concept of weak atheism.

Yep.

 

[Alceste]

Again with this... :sarcastic

The term “Atheism” is defined as “the belief that God does not exist”. Notice the word “belief”. That means that being an Atheist does not in any way indicate knowledge about the non-existence of god.

Likewise, the term “Theism” is defined as “belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe”. That last part of the sentence is important because it represents the dividing line between a Theist and a Deist. But like in the Atheism example, the active word is “belief”, not knowledge.

The word Gnostic comes from the Greek “gnostikos” and means “to know”, and likewise the connotation “Agnostic” means “not to know”. Therefore someone who considers themselves to be a Gnostic implies that they are absolutely certain about the subject at hand, while someone who uses the term Agnostic implies that they are not certain. This leads to the conclusion that no-one is “just” an Atheist or a Theist, and similarly that no-one is just an Agnostic or a Gnostic, at least in relation to this subject.

So, to sum up, one is either an Agnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist or a Gnostic Theist. The first word implies the certainty with which you hold your position and the second implies the position itself. It’s as simple as that. Still, this position might change depending on which god one is talking about. Unless one was to find that a person believes in all gods everywhere (there are thousands of religions, some with thousands of gods), that person is an Atheist with regards to some, usually most, gods.

You can not claim that "god" (whatever that means) does not exist without proclaiming yourself the universal arbiter on the meaning of the word "god".

I lack that hubris.

 

[jarofthoughts]

What it really means is that you are either unaware or unaccepting of the concept of weak atheism.

No, it means that I, as well as the dictionary, consider Agnostic Atheism to be 'weak Atheism', at least be most definitions I've heard of it.

But that wasn't the main point. The main point was that Agnosticism is -not- a middle point between Atheism and Theism. Agnosticism does not address your position about god at all, merely the certainty with which you hold that position, which means that no-one is -just- an Agnostic.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You can not claim that "god" (whatever that means) does not exist without proclaiming yourself the universal arbiter on the meaning of the word "god".

I lack that hubris.

Not sure what you mean here.
Could you elaborate somewhat please?

 

[Wombat]

the enlightenment enabled these movements....sorry to disappoint.

Oh The only thing that "disappoints" is the lame dodge...You introduce the 'Enlightenment' as an answer/example of a question regarding "secular communes"......when corrected you ignore all and persist as if the Enlightenment had something/anything to do with the issues under discussion or the specific question......


Then persist, to the exclusion of all else...to pursue the Enlightment as if it was
relevant to anything under discussion......

yes you are right the oppression religion caused lead to the age of enlightenment.

From #38
Out of curiosity I repeat the question [open to anyone influenced by or adhering to
Enlightenment principles...]-

Can you/anyone find example of-a secular commune- >any single one< that survived (say 20-30years?) beyond the death of the inevitably charismatic founder? There have been thousands of such attempts, well resourced and with the best of intentions...but I know of none that survived.


The worlds Major Living Faith traditions however have produced innumerable communes and communities that have endured for hundreds of years.

Why is that?