Trying To Understand Atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

3. Take any book. Let us say that the book contains half a million words and many pictures. Lay it open in your hand. Can you say that the book formed itself? Did the pictures fall out of the sky? Did the trees cut themselves down to form paper? Did all the words form themselves on every page, each word, comma and full stop so that they made sense? Well the answer is of course not, that would be impossible. Millions of years could go by and nothing would have happened. But the truth is that the human DNA chain contains 4.3billion parts, enough to go to the moon and back. Each part is in the right order to construct a human being with everything in its order. This is evidence of design and therefore a Designer. I would ask you other questions. Where is the edge of space; when was the beginning of time? Man thinks he is so smart, but in the overall scheme of things, he knows nothing at all.

Here's the thing about the argument from design: it's absolutely useless for proving God, because you have to start with the assumption that what we see around us was an intended goal... IOW, you have to beg the question by assuming design in order to conclude design.

The other problem: no matter how remarkable, say, books or 747s are, we never take their remarkableness as "proof" that they were created through magic, which is effectively what you're doing when you invoke God.

At the end of the day, arguments from design are nothing more than arguments from ignorance: "I can't see how X could have arisen naturally, so it must have been designed and created by God." At the sane time, though, I can't see how God could have done anything, so if I applied your approach, I could just reject God as an explanation right off the bat. Luckily, it seems I'm more open-minded and rational than you are, because I don't take the limits of my imagination as the limits of what's possible.

Psalm 14:1 (KJV) The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

Matthew 5:22: "And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

 

[Copernicus]

I think that logic gives us a kind of control in that it validates or invalidates belief. To dismiss or reject a belief is equivalent to believing that it is not true. Hence, rejection of belief is itself a belief in the end. Most people seem to use "atheist" to refer to people who reject belief in gods rather than merely lack a belief in gods. We've been over this argument ad nauseam in the past, and it usually comes down to people having to agree to disagree. It seems to be really important to a large number of atheists--maybe even the majority--that atheism is a kind of default position and that theists have an obligation to justify their belief. Defining atheism as a "non-belief" of sorts is one way of making that point, but it strikes me as an ineffective and futile rhetorical strategy.

Adding the step of believing belief is superfluous. Belief/rejection resides in that truth value, which is tied to information, hence may change. Logic validates information.

I don't understand how your reply addresses my comment. Rejecting a belief is not the same as rejecting belief in general. It is the rejection of a specific belief or claim, viz. that gods exist. Logic validates a proposition with respect to a set of premises. To call that proposition "information" does not strike me as helpful. Beliefs are merely propositions that someone holds to be true.

 

[Fool]

I don't understand how your reply addresses my comment. Rejecting a belief is not the same as rejecting belief in general. It is the rejection of a specific belief or claim, viz. that gods exist. Logic validates a proposition with respect to a set of premises. To call that proposition "information" does not strike me as helpful. Beliefs are merely propositions that someone holds to be true.

not quite, a belief/hypothesis is necessary to compare/observe against reality. the form is irrelevant because it is the action that reveals the truth, or lie.

the awe of love is the beginning of wisdom

 

[Copernicus]

not quite, a belief/hypothesis is necessary to compare/observe against reality. the form is irrelevant because it is the action that reveals the truth, or lie.

That makes even less sense than Willamena's post to me. Can you tell me what it is that I said that you are disagreeing with? I certainly did not say that beliefs or hypotheses were unnecessary. The form of what? Please try to reply in clearer language.

 

[Fool]

That makes even less sense than Willamena's post to me. Can you tell me what it is that I said that you are disagreeing with? I certainly did not say that beliefs or hypotheses were unnecessary. The form of what? Please try to reply in clearer language.

beliefs are necessary for discovery, or psychological maturity to occur. a child forms a belief, then tests, or questions, it against reality. it's a natural process. that requires the person to adapt, or die. in the esoteric it's called transmutation = evolving

6 types of Socratic Questions


finally if the person doesn't modify his/her belief system to match reality then the person will develop antisocial behavior towards self and/or others.

 

[Copernicus]

beliefs are necessary for discovery, or psychological maturity to occur. a child forms a belief, then tests, or questions, it against reality. it's a natural process. that requires the person to adapt, or die. in the esoteric it's called transmutation = evolving

6 types of Socratic Questions

OK. But you posted this in reply to something I said. What does this have to do with what I posted? I don't see any connection. There must be some reasoning process going on in your mind that you expect me to guess at.

finally if the person doesn't modify his/her belief system to match reality then the person will develop antisocial behavior towards self and/or others.

Again, this takes us far afield from what I said, and I'm not sure I agree with it. You certainly haven't given me any reason to.

 

[Fool]

OK. But you posted this in reply to something I said. What does this have to do with what I posted? I don't see any connection. There must be some reasoning process going on in your mind that you expect me to guess at.


Again, this takes us far afield from what I said, and I'm not sure I agree with it. You certainly haven't given me any reason to.

thats what I'm talking about, your belief.

 

[Copernicus]

thats what I'm talking about, your belief.

You seem to think you are, but you aren't being very clear about what you disagree with me on. Do you disagree with something I said? If so, can you tell me what that is?

 

[Fool]

You seem to think you are, but you aren't being very clear about what you disagree with me on. Do you disagree with something I said? If so, can you tell me what that is?

a person's belief creates their reality; unless the person questions the reality and realized, it won't change the matter.

 

[Copernicus]

You seem to think you are, but you aren't being very clear about what you disagree with me on. Do you disagree with something I said? If so, can you tell me what that is?

a person's belief creates their reality; unless the person questions the reality and realized, it won't change the matter.

I don't think you can question "a reality", only beliefs about reality. Anyway, I'm still not sure what you disagree with or what you are trying to say. Thank you for the attempt to communicate.

 

[Fool]

I don't think you can question "a reality", only beliefs about reality. Anyway, I'm still not sure what you disagree with or what you are trying to say. Thank you for the attempt to communicate.

Questioning one's reality is the ideal, yes.


the Reality should work the same for everyone. it shouldn't be biased to a person, or personal.

 

[MataM]

Belief in anything, that is thinking something is true without evidence, is illogical, flawed and quite likely delusional.

Say we have two hypothetical entities A and B. In order for A to be suggestive evidence for B, when B is not observed, there must have been a point in time when A and B were observed such that there is a statistical link between A and B. For example, a TV is not suggestive evidence of happy little elves. Thus there isn't even any suggestive evidence for God.

According to the Socratic method of hypothesis elimination, until there is contradictory evidence to a proposition then it could be true, but there is no reason to believe it is. Atheists are logically consistent in their approach.

 

[Glaurung]

"Theism" refers to the range of positions that include belief in a god or gods.

Sure, I'm with you so far.

"Atheism" refers to the range of positions made up of every position other than ones that fall within theism.

Atheism in any meaningful sense is the disbelief in God, not the failure to enunciate theism. Otherwise just about anything, animate or not, could be logically called an atheist.

It's simple, by the very act of identifying yourself as an atheist you are making a real claim about what you believe. (And it's obvious that in our culture atheists overwhelmingly assume some kind of naturalistic worldview). Weaselling around this by pretending that declared atheism isn't a claim about anything simply doesn't fool anyone. It's not convincing to anyone who doesn't share your philosophical agenda. (And by agenda I don't mean it in any conspiratorial sense).

Every atheist who has a functioning mind holds all sorts of positions. Take me: I hold that, for instance, that the Earth orbits the sun and that golf is boring.

And likewise pretending that materialist worldviews don't hold moral, philosophical and ideological implications for the said atheist is also the height of denial or dishonesty.

Nobody's saying that atheists hold no positions, or even that they don't hold any positions about gods. What we're saying is that any person who isn't a theist is an atheist, and there are countless belief systems that qualify as "not theism."

And again we part ways.

It's also worth remembering that there's a difference between rejecting an argument for a god and rejecting the god itself. Take this statement:

Agreed. Where we disagree is that I assert all atheists in effect do both. Essentially, I'm saying that there is no such thing as a suspension of belief. There's only assent or rejection. Of course, assent and rejection can be tentative. An atheist could be open to changing his mind, as I have never said that disbelief must be absolute. But nonetheless, if you call yourself an atheist you have made the cognitive decision to make a rejection. It is not a lack of belief, it is a belief.

 

[ArtieE]

Musing Bassist thinks that you can call an inanimate object an atheist when the definition of a theist says a theist is a person. As if putting an a- in front of the word theist changes the definition of the word theist. And for atheism being lack of belief just read What is Atheism? | American Atheists

 

[Glaurung]

Musing Bassist thinks that you can call an inanimate object an atheist when the definition of a theist says a theist is a person. As if putting an a- in front of the word theist changes the definition of the word theist. And for atheism being lack of belief just read What is Atheism? | American Atheists

As theism is an assent to an idea (the existence of God) a theist must have cognition. If it isn't sentient, it can't assent.

If however atheism is nothing more than "not-theism", if it is but an absence of any notion of or belief in God, then why would sentience (or utter lack of it) have any relevance? Further, etymology doesn't mean all that much considering that there was a time when originally (even among those who actually spoke Greek) atheism meant the denial of the state gods, or at least the pretence to their worship, so Christianity under pagan Rome was considered atheistic. In brief "muh -a" isn't a real point.

Finally, what exactly do you think is accomplished by posting that link? I'm wrong because "American atheists" say so? Well golly me.

 

[ArtieE]

As theism is an assent to an idea, mainly the existence of God, a theist must have cognition. If it isn't sentient, it can't assent.

If however atheism is nothing more than "not-theism", if it is but an absence of any notion of or belief in God, then why would sentience (or utter lack of it) have any relevance?

A theist is a person who believes one or more gods exist. If you put not in front it doesn't mean "not a person" it means "a person who doesn't believe in the existence of gods". A "strong atheist" actively believes gods don't exist. You don't have to be a strong atheist to be an atheist.

 

[Glaurung]

A theist is a person who believes one or more gods exist. If you put not in front it doesn't mean "not a person" it means "a person who doesn't believe in the existence of gods". A "strong atheist" actively believes gods don't exist. You don't have to be a strong atheist to be an atheist.

You're not addressing my point.

If atheism is an absence rather than a disbelief in God, then there is no logical reason to deny incapability (indeed even non-sentience) as also not being atheism. Anything incapable of belief, has an absence of belief. Even your own link explicitly states.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

So, which is it?

I'm simply taking American Atheists' definition to its logical conclusion. And it is the very reason I reject it as sophistry.

 

[ArtieE]

You're not addressing my point.

If atheism is an absence rather than a disbelief in God, then there is no logical reason to deny incapability (indeed even non-sentience) as also not being atheism. Anything incapable of belief, has an absence of belief. Even your own link explicitly states.

So, which is it?

I'm simply taking American Atheists' definition to its logical conclusion. And it is the very reason I reject it as sophistry.

LOL when a theist is defined as a person the only logical conclusion we can come to is that when we are talking about theists or atheists, theism or atheism we are talking about persons.

 

[Glaurung]

LOL when a theist is defined as a person the only logical conclusion we can come to is that when we are talking about theists or atheists, theism or atheism we are talking about persons.

Given your definition, I don't see how that is at all a logical necessity. It's an arbitrary clause to escape the logical wall of your own construction.

If you just admit atheism as the disbelief in God (to whatever degree of conviction) then you avoid the problem altogether. It is also not only much simpler, it is actually descriptive of something meaningful. But of course, doing so would be inconvenient for the narrative of many atheists, which is that their position is one of non-commitment. (Which quite frankly, is obvious nonsense). And which also brings us full circle to my original post.

Trying To Understand Atheism

Where else can this discussion go now? It's nothing but circles from here.

 

[psychoslice]

Its not rocket science to understand how atheist think or believe, its simply not having any beliefs in an imaginary man in the sky. that simple, DA.