Search for Truth: Atheism

[Alceste]

The Null Hypothesis is that there is no god, and until that Hypothesis is shown to be false that is how it is.

Are you saying there is no Ganges, and no universe?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Are you saying there is no Ganges, and no universe?

Nope. Never even implied that.

 

[andys]

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

Your thread is invalid from the start. Atheism doesn't make a single assertion. It makes no claim to "truth". Where did you get this misinformed idea?

I will be doing some research to see the diversity of beliefs among atheists and the arguments for and against it.

Atheism is the lack of, or the denial in, ONE belief - a belief in god (theism).
There are no beliefs associated with atheism. None. Do some research.
Therefore, there can be no "arguments" for or against it, since it asserts nothing.

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.

Atheism doesn't attack anything or any one. Atheists, as free agents, can do what they wish, but their actions have no reflection on atheism. When there is insufficient evidence, a jury should lack belief in the claim that the accused is guilty. But this lack of belief does not require the jury to produce a "truth" to explain who committed the crime. Well neither should atheism be expected to provide any explanations. Rejecting a groundless belief does not entail an alternative belief be offered in its place. Do you not understand that?

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.

You are confusing free agents who also happen to be atheists, with atheism. Atheism is not for or against anything; it is not "for" donating blood, though a free agent, who happens to be an atheist, may wish to donate blood. The actions of an atheist are made of his own accord, and are not performed in the name of atheism. You need to understand that atheism is not an organized "religion" with flocks of do-gooding atheists scurrying around in dutiful accordance to some superstitious, Iron Age transcripts. Nor do atheists start wars in the name of atheism. There are no rival atheisms who claim that theirs is the true atheism. None of that nonsense applies to atheism because atheism has nothing to say. It has no agenda. It is nothing like theism which does have beliefs and does make assertions and does have an agenda. Atheism is simply is the absence or rejection of a groundless belief in theism.

This thread is based on a moot point.

 

[Alceste]

Nope. Never even implied that.

The Null Hypothesis? It doesn't apply to the pantheistic god, because that god IS the universe. Likewise, the goddess Ganga IS the Ganges.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The Null Hypothesis? It doesn't apply to the pantheistic god, because that god IS the universe. Likewise, the goddess Ganga IS the Ganges.

The universe is the universe, and there is no empirical reason to think that the universe is god.

Ganges is a river and there is no empirical reason to think that Ganges is a goddess.

The Null Hypothesis stands.

 

[Alceste]

The universe is the universe, and there is no empirical reason to think that the universe is god.

Ganges is a river and there is no empirical reason to think that Ganges is a goddess.

The Null Hypothesis stands.

Unless, to you, the universe is synonymous with god, or the Ganges is synonymous with goddess.

You are tailoring the definition of "god" to fit your own subjective cultural bias. There is no empirical reason to believe the god concept of cultures primarily influenced by Abrahamic religions is inherently superior to the god concepts of other cultures.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless, to you, the universe is synonymous with god, or the Ganges is synonymous with goddess.

You are tailoring the definition of "god" to fit your own subjective cultural bias. There is no empirical reason to believe the god concept of cultures primarily influenced by Abrahamic religions is inherently superior to the god concepts of other cultures.

What definition of "god" are you using for the Ganges? What definition of "god" can be applied to a river validly, even if that river doesn't have personality, intelligence, mystical properties, or any of the other things that people normally associate with gods?

IOW, does your use of the term "god" in this way leave absolutely nothing to test for? If so, then we can test it. If not, then the term is arbitrary, and the term "god" is only a meaningless label in this case.

 

[Orias]

The universe is the universe, and there is no empirical reason to think that the universe is god.

It's not like it allowed your existence or anything

 

[jarofthoughts]

It's not like it allowed your existence or anything

The word "allow" implies intent, intent implying a conscious decision and there is no empirical reason to think that the universe is conscious.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Unless, to you, the universe is synonymous with god, or the Ganges is synonymous with goddess.

You are tailoring the definition of "god" to fit your own subjective cultural bias. There is no empirical reason to believe the god concept of cultures primarily influenced by Abrahamic religions is inherently superior to the god concepts of other cultures.

This:

What definition of "god" are you using for the Ganges? What definition of "god" can be applied to a river validly, even if that river doesn't have personality, intelligence, mystical properties, or any of the other things that people normally associate with gods?

IOW, does your use of the term "god" in this way leave absolutely nothing to test for? If so, then we can test it. If not, then the term is arbitrary, and the term "god" is only a meaningless label in this case.

Awaiting your response.

 

[Orias]

The word "allow" implies intent, intent implying a conscious decision and there is no empirical reason to think that the universe is conscious.

We are within the Universe though arn't we?

So that would make us the "Universe" wouldn't it?

Since our vital existences were created by simple stars?

Unless of course we exist separate from the Universe, as well as we are not conscious.

 

[Willamena]

The word "allow" implies intent, intent implying a conscious decision and there is no empirical reason to think that the universe is conscious.

You're a part of the universe, aren't you? You're conscious, aren't you? If one part of the universe is conscious, that is empirical reason to believe that other parts of the universe are conscious.

 

[jarofthoughts]

We are within the Universe though arn't we?

So that would make us the "Universe" wouldn't it?

Since our vital existences were created by simple stars?

Unless of course we exist separate from the Universe, as well as we are not conscious.

You're a part of the universe, aren't you? You're conscious, aren't you? If one part of the universe is conscious, that is empirical reason to believe that other parts of the universe are conscious.

This is just a muddling of the waters.
It is one thing to postulate that conscious beings exist within the universe and an entirely different one to then extrapolate to conclude that the universe itself is conscious.

Do you think your house is conscious too perhaps?

 

[Willamena]

This is just a muddling of the waters.
It is one thing to postulate that conscious beings exist within the universe and an entirely different one to then extrapolate to conclude that the universe itself is conscious.

Do you think your house is conscious too perhaps?

I didn't say it was a good reason to believe. But it is an empirical reason.

 

[Orias]

This is just a muddling of the waters.
It is one thing to postulate that conscious beings exist within the universe and an entirely different one to then extrapolate to conclude that the universe itself is conscious.

Do you think your house is conscious too perhaps?

The point being that we are part of the Universe, we are within it, and our minds are within it, perhaps beyond it. Within this anomoly lies the conscious ability to perceive oneself and the existences around them.

No, I do not think my house is conscious, I think that the people who built it were. To say the Universe isn't conscious is to say that we are not.

A conscious mind does not have to dictate the operations within it, merely to observe it with silence, perhaps disdain.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I didn't say it was a good reason to believe. But it is an empirical reason.

No, it is not.

 

[jarofthoughts]

To say the Universe isn't conscious is to say that we are not.

No, it is not.

 

[Willamena]

No, it is not.

What does "empirical" mean to you?

 

[jarofthoughts]

What does "empirical" mean to you?

Empirical: based on , concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

And also: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments. Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation.

definition of empirical from Oxford Dictionaries Online
Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an empirical fact that humans are conscious beings (based on this definition at least: definition of consciousness from Oxford Dictionaries Online), but it does not follow that the Universe as a whole is conscious.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're a part of the universe, aren't you? You're conscious, aren't you? If one part of the universe is conscious, that is empirical reason to believe that other parts of the universe are conscious.

But is it reason to think that the universe as a whole is conscious?

BTW - I believe that I am conscious and not a god. If we're drawing inferences from this, then wouldn't the inference to draw be that other parts of the universe are conscious and not gods?