Thoughts on Atheism

[blü 2]

human intelligence..which according to atheism, is of natural origin also, right?

Of course. You're familiar with the evolution of the nervous system and the brain, I take it?

so once again a phenomena we know exists, naturally by your own argument, must be prohibited from existing beyond the know universe

The phenomenon of thought is known to occur only on earth. The universe we have is the only universe we can be sure exists. Nothing in principle prevents abiogenesis on other planets and life evolving to intelligence. If there are other universes, and if their physics allows
life of some kind, then perhaps there are other forms of life outside our universe. That will be a matter for evidence, naturally.

more and more evolutionary biologists are looking for a better explanation than Darwinism,

Of course they are. Darwinism is from the mid 19th century. The modern theory of evolution has developed, expanded and greatly added to what Darwin said.

Exaptation is in fact an absolute validation of the predictions of ID

Really? I'd say it's an exact validation of the modern theory of evolution.

Not only that, but until your 'intelligent designer' comes out of the closet and demonstrates his/her/its/their/other objective existence, he/she/it/they/other sits on the shelf with the old Mandrake comics.

The irreducible complexity of organisms by Darwinian processes- it simply don't work, as once claimed.

There are no extant examples of 'irreducible complexity'. All have been explained in evolutionary terms.

And might I politely suggest that your constant references to Darwinism make you appear ignorant not only of the modern theory of evolution, but what you're talking about altogether.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let's start with a clear definition of 'supernatural' such that if we encounter a candidate example we can objectively determine whether it's supernatural or not.

I don't know of one

I'm going to suggest that the supernatural is the realm where one says that things that don't exist can be found so that others can't object to that which is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

Or maybe you like this one better: It's one floor above the natural and its neighbor, the juxtanatural, and two floors above the infranatural.

All seriousness aside, it's a meaningless word. If something exists, it is a part of nature. If nature is bigger than our universe and involves substances, forces, or laws unfamiliar to us, then that is just more of nature as yet undiscovered.

Likewise, if it's causally connected to nature, as we are told the god who visits us occasionally and answers prayer daily must be to be able to do those things in our world, that's also nature.

 

[blü 2]

I'm going to suggest that the supernatural is the realm where one says that things that don't exist can be found so that others can't object to that which is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.

Then if I say the supernatural realm is a realm solely of the imagination, you'd agree?

Or maybe you like this one better: It's one floor above the natural and its neighbor, the juxtanatural, and two floors above the infranatural.

That sounds at least as good as any other.

All seriousness aside, it's a meaningless word.

Yes, at least when applied to reality.

If something exists, it is a part of nature.

I'd say, if something has objective existence, it's part of nature, but the result's the same.

If nature is bigger than our universe and involves substances, forces, or laws unfamiliar to us, then that is just more of nature as yet undiscovered.

Again I'm in full agreement.

Likewise, if it's causally connected to nature, as we are told the god who visits us occasionally and answers prayer daily must be to be able to do those things in our world, that's also nature.

Well, it will be when [he] graduates to objective existence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are not the worst offender, you at least offer some arguments of substance which are much appreciated, but I'm talking about stuff like this:


It would be pointless just as having science explained to creationists is useless here.

[creationists] have no interest in learning on their own.

You are a faith based thinker.

Ignoring the facts of reality in the defense of a belief


Have you studied any of this in the past? If your interest is sincere, there are online educational modules available to you free of charge. You'll need to pursue an education in a more comprehensive way than asking questions on a message board. You'll want to start with the fundamentals and build upon them - not ask scattered questions. I'll help you find resources if you want. But you'll need to do the work as I did.


^ not exactly doing a great job of concealing contempt here!

It's pretty standard fare we see all the time here. Overwhelmingly for atheists, anyone skeptical of their belief must,by definition, lack basic critical thinking skills, and/or are uneducated.

For the record again I think you, like most atheists, are a perfectly decent intelligent knowledgeable person, who just comes to a different conclusion, a different world view-
which I think is complete wrong! but that doesn't make you fundamentally intellectually inferior

Sorry, Guy. Your point is taken.

I believe the things I wrote, but you are correct that they are saying that faith based thinking is a flawed way of thinking,and it's not hard to get from there to feeling personally insulted.

How would you recommend that I handle expressing that opinion in the future?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When you can come up with a reasonable argument for what I actually wrote. I'll respond.

And if you can explain the difference between "believing" and "believing you believe" I might also respond to you.

And trust me, there is an immense difference. I have had thousands of conversations with people who made claims to belief that they clearly did not actually possess, and yet thought that they did. That's actually pretty typical of this day and age, when people are much more attuned to what's on social media than they are with the content of their own minds.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand that you may be making your choice based on your not needing to believe that any gods exist. But that is a subjectively derived choice, meaning that it's a choice that's subject to your own personal needs and desires; that you could change at any time.

Your method seems to be to label any thought or conclusion subjective and then disqualify its validity on the basis. Some ideas (the sun is shining) are more objective than others (I prefer chocolate to vanilla)

Faith is also a bias, but not a 'bad thing'.

Faith is not a bias. It is an abdication of reason and evidence. The bias is the faith based belief.

once you recognize that your bias in favor of skepticism IS a bias, and is a subjectively derived bias (subject to your personal preferences), you also should be able to understand that you could choose to change that if you so desired.

I already told you that I am biased in favor of skepticism - and empiricism, and reason. And you seem to be deaf to the idea that there are some of us who do not and cannot choose what to believe.

Apparently, you're not one of them. You've chosen to believe something that a half dozen people have told you does not describe them. That's what I mean by a faith based belief. It's based on nothing but the will to believe it despite contradictory evidence flying in your face. But still, on you go with your faith based idea.

My bias toward skepticism is evidence based. It's based on experience as well as formal education. It's based on the enormous success of science. It's based on all of the advances made by disregarding religious ideas and substituting a better way that has made life longer, healthier, safer, easier, and more comfortable.

 

[Augustus]

The roots of secular humanism are older than Christianity. If you saw my recent post about the ancient Greek philosophers beginning with the skepticism of Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) , then you realize that secular humanism has it roots in a different tradition.

Of course it was also influenced by Greek philosophy, that's never been in doubt. Seeing as Christianity was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy it is almost implicit, but even ignoring that aspect, it is certainly true as I've said before.

Secular Humanism is an amalgamation of Greek rationalism, Christian universalism, equality in creation, a unified Humanity and teleological and optimistic view of history regarding the idea of progress, and a gnostic idea of 'salvation' through knowledge.

I'm disagreeing with what I think is you saying that secular humanism is an outgrowth of Christianity. I'm saying that it is a reaction to Christianity - a repudiation of Christianity.

So during the Enlightenment, some people reacted to and repudiated Christianity in order to arrive at pretty much exactly the same position as those who believed they were being explicitly guided by their Christianity and were part of a clearly developing intellectual current within Christianity?

That they somehow ignored their intellectual and cultural environment to create an ideology out of pure reason that just so happened to pretty much exactly match a philosophy that existed at the same time and in the same place?

The difference between the schools of thought was that one group believed that progress was guided by human reason alone, and the other group that believed it was guided by human reason in accordance with Divine Providence.

As a sceptic, I find the 'repudiation' narrative somewhat fantastical. It's still pretty much the 'virgin birth' narrative.

 

[PureX]

Let's start with a clear definition of 'supernatural' such that if we encounter a candidate example we can objectively determine whether it's supernatural or not.

I don't know of one, but plainly you do.

It's what we call natural occurrences that we cannot understand the 'how' of, yet cannot just admit that we don't understand.

Again, then, we need such a definition of a god.

Some things cannot be defined. Not everything that exists can be perceived and understood by humans. The "definition of God" is: the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. Which is ultimately beyond human comprehension.

It's not a question of bothering. It's a question of understanding...

It's a question of grasping and appreciating the ultimate mystery. And then exploring the possibilities that mystery offers us, precisely because it IS a mystery. If we want to understand mankind's relationship with the gods, we need to be able to face our own profound ignorance, and be willing to walk strait into it. We can't just sit on the sidelines scoffing at everyone else's ignorance, hope, and courage in the face of their profound unknowing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some things cannot be defined. Not everything that exists can be perceived and understood by humans. The "definition of God" is: the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. Which is ultimately beyond human comprehension.

So there are no theists? That which can't be conceived can't be believed in.

OTOH, whatever a theist believes in is - must be - comprehensible by humans.

 

[PureX]

And of course my definition of atheism defines something. It defines the class of people that give the "No" answer to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods, which hardly rises to the level of a philosophical position.

Which is why we should just call them "irrelevant", rather than atheists.

You don't really think that atheists are going to accept a definition of themselves from people that neither understand us nor approve of us?

We understand you perfectly. And we 'disapprove' because the people you describe project intellectual cowardice.

In the great Federico Fellini film, "8 1/2", as the "director" is slowly spiraling into a world of self-loathing and delusion, he is walking down a street surrounded by children playing, and in his overwrought mind he hears the children singing, and mocking him; "Veto doesn't have anything to say, but he wants to say it any-way!" (Veto is the name of the director, in the film.) This is the scene that I recall whenever I run into one of your 'unbelievers' loudly and persistently insisting that you be recognized as something you're not.

Your definition serves you, not us.

So what? We call you all "geniuses", which would "serve you", swell. But of course would also be hopelessly inaccurate.

Furthermore, your definition of atheism is what most atheists call strong atheism...

Yeah, I suggest we change that from 'strong and weak atheists' to 'atheists, and atheists pretending to be undecided so they don't have to defend their atheism'. Because that would be a FAR more accurate description of the difference.

 

[Willamena]

Of course you can choose. We all can. But to do so you will have to admit to your current bias, and that's what you think you can't do.

I think that's the rub: belief, like thought, isn't a thing we do so much as it is our participation in the world. Saying we choose to believe is like saying we choose to be conscious, which of course we don't.

Belief is the attitude of truth. We believe the world when we treat it as if it is true. If you behave genuinely as if there is a god, that's belief in god.

Because we don't have the prerequisite knowledge of god's existence or nature, both choices: faith and skepticism, are just a personal bias. Either one of us could change this bias if we wanted to. But we would have to recognize that they are a bias, first. A bias based on personal preference, and on our subjective interpretations of personal experiences.

Skepticism is another mental attitude, the attitude of doubt. The person who immediately dismisses what someone else has asserted as true because they know a different truth has doubt. The person who hesitates before venturing down a new path... Yes, mental attitudes are biases that guide and steer us in a particular way, and they are subconscious. It takes raising them to the surface to be able to shape their nature. But the attitude of truth is special, because when it comes to our own make-up of the world that we are immersed in, truth is undeniable. It's as undeniable has having thought (being conscious). Truth comes to us through information (the truth bearer), and until and unless information changes truth cannot change. Further, we don't want truth to change, because when it does it tends to turn our worlds upside down. It's not a bias you can just run out and get better information for.

 

[PureX]

I think that's the rub: belief, like thought, isn't a thing we do so much as it is our participation in the world. Saying we choose to believe is like saying we choose to be conscious, which of course we don't.

Belief is the attitude of truth. We believe the world when we treat it as if it is true. If you behave genuinely as if there is a god, that's belief in god.


Skepticism is another mental attitude, the attitude of doubt. The person who immediately dismisses what someone else has asserted as true because they know a different truth has doubt. The person who hesitates before venturing down a new path... Yes, mental attitudes are biases that guide and steer us in a particular way, and they are subconscious. It takes raising them to the surface to be able to shape their nature. But the attitude of truth is special, because when it comes to our own make-up of the world that we are immersed in, truth is undeniable. It's as undeniable has having thought (being conscious). Truth comes to us through information (the truth bearer), and until and unless information changes truth cannot change. Further, we don't want truth to change, because when it does it tends to turn our worlds upside down. It's not a bias you can just run out and get better information for.

With age (experience), and practice, we can become aware of these biases within us. And of how our egos work to protect those biases even when they are patently wrong, and even harmful to us. And as we become more cognitively aware of this, we can learn how to better avoid the intellectual trap that this "thought system" crates in our minds. We can't eliminate our bias, or our ego. But we don't have to be ruled by them, either. Which is what is happening when people claim they can't choose their own beliefs, even when those beliefs are based on subjective bias, rather then on knowledge or reason.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course you can choose. We all can. But to do so you will have to admit to your current bias, and that's what you think you can't do.

Ehhh, not really. We don't "choose" our beliefs, in the strict sense, because our beliefs are the conclusions of our perceptions, analysis and methodology rather than the result of conscious will. You cannot merely "choose" to believe that light is made of sausages, for example.

The metaphor I like to use to explain this is a game of chess. If we use chess as a metaphor for thought, the way we play chess becomes a metaphor for how we process thoughts, and the outcome of the game (winning, losing or drawing) stand in for the beliefs that are the result of the way we play the game (the conclusions of our thought process). You may, for example, choose to play a game well, or poorly, or even entirely at random, just as you may consciously choose the methodology you apply to a given problem or analysis, but the outcome of the game is not necessarily a direct result of this choice. Just because you play to lose doesn't mean that you won't end up (either accidentally or through the efforts of your opponent) capturing your opponent's King and winning the game - though obviously playing with the intention of a specific outcome (bias) does often result in the desired outcome (belief) formulating, it is not strictly a one-to-one relationship. Ergo, you cannot "choose" to formulate a belief just as you cannot "choose" to lose a game of chess. A belief is the result of a mental process just as the result of a game of chess is a result of the rules applied to the pieces and their position on the board.

Of course, you could always forfeit a game of chess, or choose not to play in the first place, but in both cases they would not be deciding the outcome of the game, merely preventing the outcome, just as you can choose not to investigate, or to stop investigating, in order to prevent a certain conclusion that you don't want to reach.

 

[PureX]

Ehhh, not really. We don't "choose" our beliefs, in the strict sense, because our beliefs are the conclusions of our perceptions, analysis and methodology rather than the result of conscious will. You cannot merely "choose" to believe that light is made of sausages, for example.

The metaphor I like to use to explain this is a game of chess. If we use chess as a metaphor for thought, the way we play chess becomes a metaphor for how we process thoughts, and the outcome of the game (winning, losing or drawing) stand in for the beliefs that are the result of the way we play the game (the conclusions of our thought process). You may, for example, choose to play a game well, or poorly, or even entirely at random, just as you may consciously choose the methodology you apply to a given problem or analysis, but the outcome of the game is not necessarily a direct result of this choice. Just because you play to lose doesn't mean that you won't end up (either accidentally or through the efforts of your opponent) capturing your opponent's King and winning the game - though obviously playing with the intention of a specific outcome (bias) does often result in the desired outcome (belief) formulating, it is not strictly a one-to-one relationship. Ergo, you cannot "choose" to formulate a belief just as you cannot "choose" to lose a game of chess. A belief is the result of a mental process just as the result of a game of chess is a result of the rules applied to the pieces and their position on the board.

Of course, you could always forfeit a game of chess, or choose not to play in the first place, but in both cases they would not be deciding the outcome of the game, merely preventing the outcome, just as you can choose not to investigate, or to stop investigating, in order to prevent a certain conclusion that you don't want to reach.

Except that we are making the rules, and we are acting as judge, and we are proclaiming the winner. So the game is 'rigged' from the start. Atheists have reasons for choosing to believe that gods don't exist. Theists also have reason for choosing to believe that gods do exist. And the each have their "convincing evidence". Yet neither can convince the other because their criteria for "evidence" and "reason" are not the same. Both of their 'belief games' are rigged to produce a specific winner. And neither of them are willing to admit to it.

And it's this unwillingness to admit to it that causes them to imagine that they "have no choice" but to accept their winner as the winner. When, in fact, they were choosing all along, by choosing the rules, and by acting as judge, and in proclaiming themselves the winner.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If atheists believe there is no God, wouldn’t they be better off than those who believe in a false god?

What's the difference?
How would you know?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Except that we are making the rules, and we are acting as judge, and we are proclaiming the winner. So the game is 'rigged' from the start.

Again, not really. The game is "rigged" in that you can determine - to an extent - to your own biases, but ultimately the outcome of a specific method of inquiry, however biased it may be, is never guaranteed in favour of your bias. The result is the result. You can't consciously change the outcome any more than you can consciously decide that an elephant would make a good pencil. Our beliefs are not purely the result of conscious choice, but a result of the processes of our brain. If we change the rules of the game, we are no longer playing chess.

Atheists have reasons for choosing to believe that gods don't exist. Theists also have reason for choosing to believe that gods do exist. And the each have their "convincing evidence". Yet neither can convince the other because their criteria for "evidence" and "reason" are not the same. Both of their 'belief games' are rigged to produce a specific winner. And neither of them are willing to admit to it.

You're talking about biases again, which are things we have a degree of conscious control over, but beliefs aren't the same thing as biases. They can be the result of biases, but there is always a chance that our beliefs will actually form contrary to our biases. In that sense, beliefs do not, and cannot, be the result of choice.

And it's this unwillingness to admit to it that causes them to imagine that they "have no choice" but to accept their winner as the winner. When, in fact, they were choosing all along, by choosing the rules, and by acting as judge, and in proclaiming themselves the winner.

I already said biases play a part in determining the outcome, but the outcome itself is not something you can "choose". We can adjust our mental faculties that allow the result to be more or less accurate, but the result is always the result and cannot directly be influenced. It's not that people "have no choice" in what they believe, it's that they cannot directly - as an act of sheer will - determine the end result of their mental processes. This isn't some vague philosophical point, either. It's literally how the human brain works.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course. You're familiar with the evolution of the nervous system and the brain, I take it?

The phenomenon of thought is known to occur only on earth. The universe we have is the only universe we can be sure exists. Nothing in principle prevents abiogenesis on other planets and life evolving to intelligence. If there are other universes, and if their physics allows
life of some kind, then perhaps there are other forms of life outside our universe. That will be a matter for evidence, naturally.

right, so we have no basis to rule out creative intelligence existing outwith our universe, nor spontaneous processes, so both must be allowed as possible explanations

Of course they are. Darwinism is from the mid 19th century. The modern theory of evolution has developed, expanded and greatly added to what Darwin said.

yet some still hold to the original Darwinian theory, that everything can be explained by adaptation, that it does not run afoul of irreducible complexity,

Not only that, but until your 'intelligent designer' comes out of the closet and demonstrates his/her/its/their/other objective existence, he/she/it/they/other sits on the shelf with the old Mandrake comics.

likewise until macro evolution can be scientifically tested, it remains philosophical speculation

There are no extant examples of 'irreducible complexity'. All have been explained in evolutionary terms.

try the eye for starters

And might I politely suggest that your constant references to Darwinism make you appear ignorant not only of the modern theory of evolution, but what you're talking about altogether.

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory

We can call it neo-Darwinism if you prefer, then there is punctuated equilibrium of course among others, but Darwinists often take offense at this also,- pointing out how poorly the original theory held up, how splintered it became-

You run into the same thing with any niche belief, avid proponents will invariable complain about the terminology, but everyone else knows exactly what it means

So for most people, Darwinism is a useful catch-all for any chance driven process for the development of life

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry, Guy. Your point is taken.

I believe the things I wrote, but you are correct that they are saying that faith based thinking is a flawed way of thinking,and it's not hard to get from there to feeling personally insulted.

How would you recommend that I handle expressing that opinion in the future?

I think we all sometimes come across as being a little more emphatic than we mean to, just as a consequence of debating?

But it's not a matter of feeling insulted, as a theist you get called lots of names here, it's that dismissing a person's fundamental cognitive ability, detracts from any decent debate on substance
When something is claimed a result of inherently superior thinking skills... then by definition skeptics become intellectually inferior. This certainly can happen with religion also, it's just practically mandatory for atheism- it's invariably touted as the 'thinking mans' position v an ignorant position of mere faith

Even worse: when something is declared 'fact', skeptics must then by definition be ignorant, dishonest, stupid, or even wicked as Dawkins puts it.

Like most people of faith, I acknowledge faith in God, because I can't prove it, I don't claim it as fact, I think perfectly intelligent people can come to different conclusions with the same evidence
I have faith because I logically deduced it, from an agnostic starting point- having faith was the conclusion, not the method. We all believe in something, whether we acknowledge that as such or not.

 

[Hawkins]

Any Thoughts or Suggestions? Anything you'd want me to clarify?

Atheism is a twisted world view put up by those brainwashed by the long years of secular education since childhood. In a nutshell, they demand and suggest that everything should be well evidenced before it is believed. However this is not how this reality works. They can't even provide the evidence of what they themselves did just yesterday. While they take the existence of black holes for a fact without any evidence presented to them individually.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is a twisted world view put up by those brainwashed by the long years of secular education since childhood. In a nutshell, they demand and suggest that everything should be well evidenced before it is believed. However this is not how this reality works. They can't even provide the evidence of what they themselves did just yesterday. While they take the existence of black holes for a fact without any evidence presented to them individually.

So you do agree that there isn't good evidence to support theism? That seems to be an implication of what you're saying.