Thoughts on Atheism

[Hawkins]

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

The point is, past can hardly be evidenced. Humans don't generally rely on evidence to approach a truth. They rely on faith in witnessing to approach a truth! That's why you know for a fact that black hole exists but without evidence being presented! That's why you read daily news from media without evidence being presented. History basically has no evidence at all, that's why you can't even present the evidence of what you just did yesterday. In a nutshell, humans get to a truth by examining the reliability and credibility of human sources of information and to believe with faith.

Yet atheism has framed a delusion to think that everything can be evidenced (while it's absolutely not), and evidence should be presented before a fact can be believed (while again it's absolutely not the case in this reality).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm going to share some thoughts on atheism in this thread. I expect it will throw up some unexpected responses because my views on atheism are NOT representative of many atheists on the forum. It may be useful nonetheless to share and see how things go.

Firstly, Atheism is (for me) the explicit rejection of the existence of god. the reason for this is that god is something that is not and cannot be observed, but is instead inferred by an intellectual error. I realise that is not a view widely held on RF, with most atheists professing a "lack of belief" and I respect many differences arise from that.

Second, this particular variety of Atheism is, in a sense, dogmatic and a "faith". There isn't absolute categorical proof for the validity of this view and many would dispute that as a basis for legitimate belief. If all belief is the product of man and is therefore as finite as man's experience, both within their individual lifetime and the historical accumulation of experience. There is no god and no omniscience. There is no absolute standard of truth or knowledge. Much of the problem of scepticism is that is seeks for absolute where there cannot be one. It continues to inherit a belief in absolute conviction from religion, when in fact none is possible. knowledge is finite and imperfect, as a product and a reflection of its human creators.

Third, Atheism entails a worldview and is in a sense a "religion", in that rejecting god means rejecting the idea of creation. If God traditionally performed the role of "creator" of nature, society and morality, these things have to be re-evaluated until we reach an atheistic worldview. Atheism is therefore not a singular isolated statement about whether god exists or not, but is a broader philosophical conception about how man, nature and society exist without a deity.

Fourth, Atheism therefore has the risk of nihilism. If there is no god, because god is a creator, it brings into question the very source of creation. It brings about questions of the nature of meaning and purpose of existence, of our own sense of importance and our role in the universe. This is not an inevitable result of such atheism, but is certainly a factor when realising the necessity for man creating his own values.

Fourth, there is no "a-historical" atheism. one of the things that comes up a great deal when people try to define atheism is they reach for the dictionary. This however fails to take into account that how we define words, logic, standards of truth and knowledge, are all ultimately products of history and are historically relative to the times they live in. There is therefore no "eternal" atheism. atheism has evolved though history and will continue to evolve. people who believe that "logic" validates atheism fail to take into account that logic is also the product of men's minds and of historical evolution. logic is at least in part relative and subjective even if it may have an objective content for understanding the relationship between things and properties.

Finally, atheism means the possibility of self-deification. If man created god, he projected his own humanity into the divine. There is no absolute separation between the "human" and the "divine". In a sense therefore, man can live in the pursuit of an absolute but can never attain it. Man can aspire to be gods, increasing human powers of creation (and destruction) as a source of meaning and purpose. However human being will never become gods in an absolute sense, but the pursuit of a "purer" or "fuller" expression of the meaning of humanity is what is meaningful in life. In creating ourselves, we possess and exercise the divine power of creation.

As any thread on atheism is by definition controversial, I will make a disclaimer that these are my views on atheism and are NOT meant to tell other atheists what they are or believe. Atheism is not a single monolithic idea, but is a conclusion that can be reached by several paths. Most Atheists on RF will do so by a "lack of belief" based on a "lack of evidence" for god and therefore withhold belief. That is not how I understand or experience my own atheism however.

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

Hi mate, I haven't been around much lately, but read this and wanted to respond.
For me, the clarity in your post, particularly around the difference between your atheism, and atheism per se, is super important.

In that light, I found your post really interesting and informative. It touched on some of my views, but clearly our atheism is of very different flavours (which is fine!)

I've always thought that was one commonality between theism and atheism. The terms are basically umbrellas sitting over diverse world views and philosophies.

I found your fourth point (err...your second fourth point) and your fifth point agreeable with my views, and loved the context you gave to your second point.

 

[PureX]

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.

We also interpret the outcomes, according to our bias. So really, there is no escaping it. We see what we expect to see, because that's what we're looking for. We don't see what we don't think is there, because we don't look for it. In relation to physical objects, our bias will tend to be corrected by our experience of physical reality. But "God" is an ideal, like beauty, not a physical object. So we will "perceive it" where, when, and how we want to perceive it. And where when and how we have come to expect it. In the case of these kinds of idealized experiences, our bias is self-validated.

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.

That only happens when we allow it. Does the term "denial" ring a bell? Because that term describes all those instances when we will not allow our "beliefs" to be overruled by experience, physics, facts, or reason. Clearly, we humans are very able and willing to deny the truth in favor of our preferred bias. And we do so BY CHOICE.

I already said biases play a part in determining the outcome, but the outcome itself is not something you can "choose".

That isn't really relevant, since we can and very often do choose to simply ignore the outcome that don't agree with our bias.
And we do so BY CHOICE.

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.

Again, this doesn't matter when we can simply ignore the reality of the results that we don't want to acknowledge. And we humans do so, regularly. (Humans are not causing global warming, for example. You can show all the evidence, results, and proofs you want, and still millions of people continue to deny that they are "real".) This is the effect of choice determining people's beliefs over evidence, experience, reason, and whatever else you claim we can't ignore, but do so all the time.

 

[blü 2]

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

But before that can happen, there has to a phenomenon with objective existence, that is, not the product or distortion of a particular imagination. And it's these that are noticeably lacking.

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.

This is where we seriously disagree.

If we want to talk about God, the first question is, What exactly are we talking about? And if the answer is, Can't be defined, can't say, don't know, don't ask, too big to be understood, infinite, omni, and so on, then it's instantly clear that our topic is a product of imagination, not of observation of objective reality.

Since it's very usual to insist instead that God is real, then God must have objective existence ─ that's what 'real' means, part of objective reality. And if God has objective existence, then in principle a satisfactory demonstration of God in objective reality must be possible.

But there's never been an authenticated example, anywhere, ever.

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.

No, leaving aside novels and movies &c, mysteries are for solving.

If not, then one is accepting that one has no idea what one's actually talking about, and likes it that way.

I hope I tend not to think like that.

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.

Before anyone can have a relationship with gods, 'gods' must be a meaningful term. As I mentioned, as it stands it's anything but.

We can't just sit on the sidelines scoffing at everyone else's ignorance, hope, and courage in the face of their profound unknowing.

Since you can't say what real thing you're looking for, you're not, in my view, serious about looking for a real thing, but rather an imaginary thing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, I guess, but wouldn't it be better to say so out loud to oneself?

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

This is where we seriously disagree.

If we want to talk about God, the first question is, What exactly are we talking about? And if the answer is, Can't be defined, can't say, don't know, don't ask, too big to be understood, infinite, omni, and so on, then it's instantly clear that our topic is a product of imagination, not of observation of objective reality.

Since it's very usual to insist instead that God is real, then God must have objective existence ─ that's what 'real' means, part of objective reality. And if God has objective existence, then in principle a satisfactory demonstration of God in objective reality must be possible.

But there's never been an authenticated example, anywhere, ever.

I don't remember ever saying that.

 

[blü 2]

right, so we have no basis to rule out creative intelligence existing outwith our universe

Indeed we do. We rule it out the same way we rule unicorns and pixies out ─ absence of evidence so total that it's evidence of absence. Especially since you say it's busy working at your elbow as we speak, yet you can make no satisfactory demonstration of any kind in support of the notion.

nor spontaneous processes

We know QM acknowledges spontaneous processes. What exactly do you have in mind? And on the basis of what evidence?

so both must be allowed as possible explanations

So both intelligence outside our universe and spontaneous phenomena outside of QM must be ruled out as having no credibility at this time as possible explanations.

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

Do you mean exaptation?

The last part's easy. As I keep pointing out to you, there are zero extant examples of 'irreducible complexity'.

Not only that, but before any purported example of 'irreducible complexity' could be offered as evidence for an unidentified, never detected something with unknown purposes and supernatural powers, the claimant would need to show that the example was indeed of a complexity that was irreducible, and not simply unexplained at present. And that, of course, has never been done either.

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

That's a question for experts in evolutionary science, and they tell us macro evolution accounts for the lot.

On the basis of what evidence do you argue with them?

try the eye for starters

>Evolution of the eye<. I know you have no intention of reading it in order to learn but there it is anyway.

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

See? No mention of all the advances since 1859. But then, you don't read those either.

 

[blü 2]

I don't remember ever saying that.

Bloody gremlins!

Sorry about that.

 

[Willamena]

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.

They can't choose their own beliefs because they cast out truth to be the real world. Once it's cast out, it's no longer yours to do with as you please.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

What's the difference?
How would you know?

Good questions.
Made me think. Ouch.
Ok, probably no difference, and we probably wouldn’t know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point is, past can hardly be evidenced. Humans don't generally rely on evidence to approach a truth. They rely on faith in witnessing to approach a truth! That's why you know for a fact that black hole exists but without evidence being presented! That's why you read daily news from media without evidence being presented. History basically has no evidence at all, that's why you can't even present the evidence of what you just did yesterday. In a nutshell, humans get to a truth by examining the reliability and credibility of human sources of information and to believe with faith.

Yet atheism has framed a delusion to think that everything can be evidenced (while it's absolutely not), and evidence should be presented before a fact can be believed (while again it's absolutely not the case in this reality).

I'll take that as a "yes."

 

[Laika]

Hi mate, I haven't been around much lately, but read this and wanted to respond.
For me, the clarity in your post, particularly around the difference between your atheism, and atheism per se, is super important.

In that light, I found your post really interesting and informative. It touched on some of my views, but clearly our atheism is of very different flavours (which is fine!)

I've always thought that was one commonality between theism and atheism. The terms are basically umbrellas sitting over diverse world views and philosophies.

I found your fourth point (err...your second fourth point) and your fifth point agreeable with my views, and loved the context you gave to your second point.

Thanks.I'm glad it was useful. I hadn't noticed I'd done two fourth points until you mentioned it. lol!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We also interpret the outcomes, according to our bias.

Again, no. That's not how the brain works. You can't "interpret" a loss as a win.

So really, there is no escaping it. We see what we expect to see, because that's what we're looking for. We don't see what we don't think is there, because we don't look for it. In relation to physical objects, our bias will tend to be corrected by our experience of physical reality. But "God" is an ideal, like beauty, not a physical object. So we will "perceive it" where, when, and how we want to perceive it. And where when and how we have come to expect it. In the case of these kinds of idealized experiences, our bias is self-validated. That only happens when we allow it. Does the term "denial" ring a bell? Because that term describes all those instances when we will not allow our "beliefs" to be overruled by experience, physics, facts, or reason. Clearly, we humans are very able and willing to deny the truth in favor of our preferred bias. And we do so BY CHOICE.
That isn't really relevant, since we can and very often do choose to simply ignore the outcome that don't agree with our bias.
And we do so BY CHOICE.
Again, this doesn't matter when we can simply ignore the reality of the results that we don't want to acknowledge. And we humans do so, regularly. (Humans are not causing global warming, for example. You can show all the evidence, results, and proofs you want, and still millions of people continue to deny that they are "real".) This is the effect of choice determining people's beliefs over evidence, experience, reason, and whatever else you claim we can't ignore, but do so all the time.

You've not really said anything that contradicts what I've written, you've just missed the point. We CAN choose our biases, but we cannot choose BELIEFS, because beliefs are THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR BIASES.

Do you understand?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Good questions.
Made me think. Ouch.
Ok, probably no difference, and we probably wouldn’t know.

I appreciate your honesty.
Questioning ourselves is what it's all about.

 

[PureX]

But before that can happen, there has to a phenomenon with objective existence, that is, not the product or distortion of a particular imagination.

Says who? You?

If I take a drug that enables me to "see God", does that mean I didn't see God? Just because the drug helps us to understand HOW I saw God does not mean that I didn't see God.

If we want to talk about God, the first question is, What exactly are we talking about? And if the answer is, Can't be defined, can't say, don't know, don't ask, too big to be understood, infinite, omni, and so on, then it's instantly clear that our topic is a product of imagination, not of observation of objective reality.

Yep. There are some things in life that you just can't have. And god-knowledge is one of them. But rejecting the mystery because it's a mystery doesn't make the mystery go away. Nor does it make you any smarter than you were before you rejected it. So I'm not impressed by complaints that theists can't or won't define their gods, just so that atheists can contend with them.

Since it's very usual to insist instead that God is real, then God must have objective existence ─ that's what 'real' means, part of objective reality.

That's only what "real" means to a materialist. To the rest of us, "real" means a lot more than just displaying physicality apart from our awareness of it. And anyway, "objectivity" is, itself, an absurdly incoherent concept, as it completely ignores the fact that all human perception is subjective. There is no "objective reality" that any human mind can access.

 

[PureX]

They can't choose their own beliefs because they cast out truth to be the real world. Once it's cast out, it's no longer yours to do with as you please.

That's an interesting way of phrasing it, but I agree. Once we lose the realization that our concept of reality is not actual reality, our concept of reality becomes a "truth" that we think exists apart us, as "objective reality". And that can't be denied.

But this is just human delusion. Because the only reality we have access to is the one we create in our minds. And that reality is 'subjective'. It is our idea of the truth, not the truth, itself. Which is why we can change it if we so desire.

 

[james bond]

Actually it doesn't. Communism leads to communism.

Just read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. In the US, we have the Antifa group and many liberals already heading for socialism and then communism.

 

[Jumi]

Just read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. In the US, we have the Antifa group and many liberals already heading for socialism and then communism.

I've read it in the 90s. Wasn't convinced. Why do you value Marx's opinion so highly?

 

[james bond]

I could be, but from past attempts it has proven very hard to change. I'm not sure its possible to change my beliefs (or anyone else's) except over very long periods of time with a lot of motivation to really research and re-evaluate it.



you're welcome.



Actually the context I meant was "self-creation" in terms of creating the psychological self, rather than a biological one. Our ability to alter our surroundings and adapt them to our needs is also something of a god-like ability in some ways.



We're selfish and don't want to die basically. I'm not really bothered about that honestly but



You're a creationist and for what its worth I'm entirely ok with that. It's not like I'm going to be able to persuade you to believe otherwise in the course of an online discussion as people's beliefs typically change on much longer time scales (even in response to trauma to an extent). I'm sure we both have plenty experience of that and you have been on RF longer than I have.



"Some" forms of atheism lead to communism, but not all. Atheism isn't a single monolithic bloc but is a number of different philosophies arriving at the same conclusion. Communism was based on Dialectical Materialism, whereas most Atheists on RF are sceptics or agnostic atheists and would reject the claims of communist-atheists.

>>I could be, but from past attempts it has proven very hard to change. I'm not sure its possible to change my beliefs (or anyone else's) except over very long periods of time with a lot of motivation to really research and re-evaluate it.



you're welcome.



Actually the context I meant was "self-creation" in terms of creating the psychological self, rather than a biological one. Our ability to alter our surroundings and adapt them to our needs is also something of a god-like ability in some ways.<<

Well, trying to change someone is like changing God. One can't do it. They have to do it themselves.

>>"Some" forms of atheism lead to communism, but not all. Atheism isn't a single monolithic bloc but is a number of different philosophies arriving at the same conclusion. Communism was based on Dialectical Materialism, whereas most Atheists on RF are sceptics or agnostic atheists and would reject the claims of communist-atheists.<<

Yes, I agree. However, Dialectical Materialism covers all the parts that atheists think only exists. There are two parts -- the dialectic and materialism. The dialectic opposes spiritualism. The dialectic is "In opposition to the “metaphysical” mode of thought, which viewed things in abstraction, each by itself and as though endowed with fixed properties, Hegelian dialectics considers things in their movements and changes, interrelations and interactions. Everything is in continual process of becoming and ceasing to be, in which nothing is permanent but everything changes and is eventually superseded. All things contain contradictory sides or aspects, whose tension or conflict is the driving force of change and eventually transforms or dissolves them. But whereas Hegel saw change and development as the expression of the world spirit, or Idea, realizing itself in nature and in human society, for Marx and Engels change was inherent in the nature of the material world. They therefore held that one could not, as Hegel tried, deduce the actual course of events from any “principles of dialectics”; the principles must be inferred from the events."

dialectical materialism | philosophy

Sorry, I had to refer to Britannica to explain because it's difficult for me to see this is all there is. The part which we all think is "reality" isn't. It's just what is in our universe. I would guess that atheists would start with materialism as many atheists here argue for it.

 

[james bond]

You have it entirely backwards.
Tis the religious folk who claim to know all these many things about
the supernatural world which rules over & pervades our universe.
Atheists don't know nuthin about that.
As for the natural world, believers know just as much as we atheists do.

The atheists I know tend towards capitalism.
They see no moral imperative or advantage in being forced to share
the wealth with lesser folk. But we might choose to share some,
just because we want to. Communism sucks big stinky hairy b***s.

Laika pointed out Dialectical Materialism which is what atheists are concerned about and think that is what exists -- the dialectic and materialism.

 

[james bond]

I've read it in the 90s. Wasn't convinced. Why do you value Marx's opinion so highly?

I personally don't value it, but the atheists would be swayed by it. It's based on what atheists believe exists.