Thoughts on Atheism

[Guy Threepwood]

No, that's stage magic. I'm referring to the concept of actual magic, such as creating the EM spectrum with the magic word 'Light!' and fetching a cold can from the fridge without rising from your chair with 'Accio beer!' In other words, altering reality independently of the rules of physics, usually by wishing.

or such as the phenomena of an invisible infinite probability machine spontaneously creating this universe and the rules of physics as we know them

Nope. I'm using my biological brain right now. It's completely physical, which is why it alters function, malfunctions or stops functioning altogether when physical things happen to it ─ alcohol, caffeine, other drugs, disease, trauma, stress, stroke, &c. (If it were magical instead, these things wouldn't fuss it.)

Okay , so creative intelligence is the phenomena which is NOT magic then, by your own concession.

I'm with you, let's go with the non-magic explanation

 

[PureX]

man is the source of religious belief and/or belief in god.

Man is the source of all conceptualized belief. Including the conceptualization of, and belief in, reality, itself.

You gave lots of reasons why NOT to be an atheist, but you didn't give any reasons why your have chosen an atheistic conception of reality.

My disagreement with atheism is that it's an unnecessary, and unfounded negation of divine possibilities that people often can and do find very helpful to believe in. And as you did not offer any positive reason for this negation, yourself, my observation remains unscathed.

Care to comment?

 

[Laika]

Man is the source of all conceptualized belief. Including the conceptualization of, and belief in, reality, itself.

You gave lots of reasons why NOT to be an atheist, but you didn't give any reasons why your have chosen an atheistic conception of reality.

My disagreement with atheism is that it's an unnecessary, and unfounded negation of divine possibilities that people often can and do find very helpful to believe in. And as you did not offer any positive reason for this negation, yourself, my observation remains unscathed.

Care to comment?

There isn't one. As a belief, it simply "is". It has proven consistently resistant to either change or reason or even evidence. Its why I'm comfortable describing it as a faith and a dogma because I am self-conscious of it's irrationality.

 

[suncowiam]

I personally think it’s the smart thing to do.

God has to be defined as there are multiple belief systems which define Him in ways that contradict each other... you may find that a certain definition of what God is may align to the atheist understanding of what God might be, should He exist for the atheist at some point!

Peace

Which is fine if the topic is of comparative religion. And if the agenda was of genuinely curiousity.

Do you think an atheist really cares that there could exist many gods when all his reasoning to not believe in one God is true for any number of gods? Not to mention mythical beings and other unobserved figures?

 

[suncowiam]

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?

As an atheist, do you not believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in Santa Claus? If not, then why is it different?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The river has no source?

The river's source is (melting) precipitation from the mountains - which, in turn, has its source in clouds - which have their source in sunlight (among other things like air flow, other energy inputs, etc. - but trying to keep it simple) evaporating water into the air - which has its source in dense accumulation of gases having grown so hot from the density that they ignited - which has its source in an outward pouring of matter, possibly from a massive-scale accumulation (perhaps due to gravity's effects over vast arrays of time) that results in an unsustainable "singularity" - which has its source in the matter of the universe at large plus its companion property "gravity" - which has its source in "?"

It is true that our knowledge gets more fuzzy the further we get from "home", but knowledge of many of those steps in there (even the ones that are now more commonly known) has only come about through time, investigation and experience. Meaning that we are consistently pushing that envelope of knowledge about the universe. It's likely we'll never understand it all in the end, but even if we ultimately reach a point at which we can effectively "know no more" - even at that limit, the fact that there is something rather than nothing will still only prove that there is something rather than nothing. It neither implies nor proves or serves as evidence for ANYTHING else.

 

[Laika]

As an atheist, do you not believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in Santa Claus? If not, then why is it different?

I don't believe in Santa Claus or God, but they are different in that belief in Santa would only relevant for one day of the year, whereas god would be relevant for all days of the year.

Although when I was a kid I did try to catch Santa by using string and sellotape to create a net in my bedroom on Christmas eve so I could him and get catch all the presents. My parents made me take it down of course.

 

[atanu]

But such an hypothesis is unnecessary, and anyway no such 'creative intelligence' has ever been demonstrated.

Nope. I'm using my biological brain right now. It's completely physical, which is why it alters function, malfunctions or stops functioning altogether when physical things happen to it ─ alcohol, caffeine, other drugs, disease, trauma, stress, stroke, &c. (If it were magical instead, these things wouldn't fuss it.)

Something magical is indeed happening in your posts. You are ascribing to Fool or or to Laika someone else's statements.

 

[PureX]

There isn't one. As a belief, it simply "is". It has proven consistently resistant to either change or reason or even evidence. Its why I'm comfortable describing it as a faith and a dogma because I am self-conscious of it's irrationality.

So you take no responsibility for your own beliefs?

 

[suncowiam]

I don't believe in Santa Claus or God, but they are different in that belief in Santa would only relevant for one day of the year, whereas god would be relevant for all days of the year.

Although when I was a kid I did try to catch Santa by using string and sellotape to create a net in my bedroom on Christmas eve so I could him and get catch all the presents. My parents made me take it down of course.

Hmmm... Maybe I being too specific as Santa Claus as an example but if one believed in Santa Claus, I would guess that belief would extend to Santa Claus existing for more than a day?

Any hows... How about unicorns?

 

[Laika]

So you take no responsibility for your own beliefs?

you can only be responsible for what you can change. I cannot will myself to levitate off the ground and defy gravity, nor can I will myself to be a theist or an agnostic. As a belief, this is not a question of will power.

Hmmm... Maybe I being too specific as Santa Claus as an example but if one believed in Santa Claus, I would guess that belief would extend to Santa Claus existing for more than a day?

Any hows... How about unicorns?

I really haven't thought about unicorns that much.

 

[WalterTrull]

there is something rather than nothing.

Yup, that's what I'm sayin'.

 

[WalterTrull]

I cannot will myself to levitate off the ground and defy gravity,

Weelll.. not currently.

 

[suncowiam]

you can only be responsible for what you can change. I cannot will myself to levitate off the ground and defy gravity, nor can I will myself to be a theist or an agnostic. As a belief, this is not a question of will power.



I really haven't thought about unicorns that much.

I was going to challenge you on the religious component that you asserted concerning atheism but you did not take my bait! Darn you.

Anyhows, it goes something like this. If I don't believe in Santa Claus for the exact same reasons I don't believe in God then why would that non-belief in Santa Clause be considered a religion. My reasons for being an atheist is simple. I am an atheist by various definitions of atheism and not by choice. I didn't wake up some day saying, hmmm, I want to be an atheist. It just so happens that we don't define some fancy term for those that don't believe in Santa Claus. The same fancy term for not believing in God also appears to conflict and oppose with theists.

God and Santa Claus are one in the same for me. There's really nothing fancy or elaborate to it.

 

[Laika]

I was going to challenge you on the religious component that you asserted concerning atheism but you did not take my bait! Darn you.

Anyhows, it goes something like this. If I don't believe in Santa Claus for the exact same reasons I don't believe in God then why would that non-belief in Santa Clause be considered a religion. My reasons for being an atheist is simple. I am an atheist by various definitions of atheism and not by choice. I didn't wake up some day saying, hmmm, I want to be an atheist. It just so happens that we don't define some fancy term for those that don't believe in Santa Claus. The same fancy term for not believing in God also appears to conflict and oppose with theists.

God and Santa Claus are one in the same for me. There's really nothing fancy or elaborate to it.

Lol. I wondered if that was what you were doing.

I'm just speaking for myself here and can't say what other atheists think. Personally, God and Santa are different in that God is connected with a huge number of variables, such as how god would "create" the universe, decide morality or law, establish a blue print for organising society (e.g. divine right of kings), etc. I think that is why atheism is important, as god has been a way of seeing and understanding the world, whereas unpicking that is therefore a major undertaking. As I said, unicorns haven't really come up that much for me as we tend not to place much importance in belief (or disbelief) in them.

 

[Jumi]

I agree with much of what you say, but I've yet to meet an atheist who does not explicitly claim intellectual superiority as the fundamental reason for their holding a different belief.

I never thought that way when I was atheist. I did deal with a lot of claims about what I thought though that were patently false.

 

[Augustus]

Whats a Christian Atheist?

I meant that Western society has been profoundly shaped by Christianity, including atheistic ideologies like Secular Humanism. I wasn't meaning that they are literally Christian.

 

[Jumi]

I'm just speaking for myself here and can't say what other atheists think. Personally, God and Santa are different in that God is connected with a huge number of variables, such as how god would "create" the universe, decide morality or law, establish a blue print for organising society (e.g. divine right of kings), etc. I think that is why atheism is important, as god has been a way of seeing and understanding the world, whereas unpicking that is therefore a major undertaking. As I said, unicorns haven't really come up that much for me as we tend not to place much importance in belief (or disbelief) in them.

Not all Gods are equal. Though many believe in a God like the one you mention.

 

[james bond]

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?

>>but is instead inferred by an intellectual error.<<

Why couldn't you or the typical atheist be the one making an intellectual error?

>>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.<<

I would agree with this. Most atheists think this is all there is and all there will be. Also, I'm glad you admitted that your's and the atheist's worldview is a religion and based on faith, too.

>>In creating ourselves, we possess and exercise the divine power of creation.<<

What do you mean by we create ourselves?

You seem to assume that the act of creation did not happen. We do not actually create ourselves, but reproduce sexually. The first man and woman and the ability to reproduce sexually did not just happen. If you think this is not the case, then create something simpler. For example, a new flower for us.

Next, I thought you were referring to Darwin and evolution, but I don't believe we descended from apes and ape-men or a common ancestor. Otherwise, there would be many fossils of ape-men and other transitional fossils and ape-men would still be happening, i.e. a preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, it's scientific racism to say we descended from apes.

Moreover, if humans did evolve, then we would have made guns to protect ourselves. However, there is a movement by atheists (liberals) to control guns, i.e. get rid of guns, which goes against Darwin's evolution. Why the discrepancy?

Finally, the sceptism on creationists part is that atheists seem to believe they can create a universe or living things just by believing in it. There is no such evidence because if living things were created by nature or humans, then we would be seeing it all the time. What it shows scientifically is that creation does not happen, but is hybridization or genetic modification.

 

[james bond]

You're trying to make more of atheism than there really is. I see no evidence of any god or goddess. Period.....End of story. You seem to want to make more of it than what it is.......
Atheism is not a rejection of the existence of god as you state, it is only a recognition of the absence of any evidence for a god. Atheism isn't necessarily dogmatic nor does it qualify in any way as a 'faith'. Atheism doesn't entail a worldview as you suggest. And there is really nothing about atheism that could evolve through history to my mind, it's always the same 'there is no evidence, end of story'. And your last point, something regarding self deification is beyond my comprehension, I can't begin to imagine where you get this idea. Read anthropology and learn about religion. Men create gods for specific reasons, and religions have a primary social function unrelated to anything transcendental. Religions enforce group identity and solidarity, and each has a unique god or goddess as a centerpiece. Religions, whether true or false, are social organizations first and foremost. My belief is that every church clergy is corrupt, just as every government is corrupt to some degree. Give me your money and I'll promise you heaven.... is that game. Study mythology and the hundreds and hundreds of gods that men have created to get a broader perspective.
Or, simply turn to reality and try to understand what there is evidence for. Science it's called.

Atheism leads to Communism. What you stated is the abstract concept of atheism and that in which leads to Communism. It purports to understand all that we need to know about the world and universe and gives us a false sense of security and power. Communism must eliminate religion, morality and philosophy first. Humans and their science along with nature can do it all. It's explained in The Communist Manifesto.