Atheism Examined

By asking why Dawkins pursues, with a particular ardor, things that don't exist? Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but typically when someone becomes hostile to something such as God, it typically means that there is some measure that it is sinking in. After all, we don't fear paper tigers, right? If I gave a thorough discourse on various arguments from the ontological to the teleological, would this just be more sophistry? I ask because if we can manage to sift through the rhetorical banter, the underlying question always boils down to: 0 + 0 = what? Still no one can account for this inequality. You guys? Who exactly are you confusing me for?

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

Theists like to act like the entire controversy is driven by atheists, but that's a misrepresentation.There could be a hundred reasons why Dawkins does what he does (and I don't see him doing it with particularly any more "ardor" than anybody else who has a book to sell.) I think the most relevant is a fact you brought into evidence - the fact that atheists, unfairly, are the least trusted group in American society today.Clearly there's a great deal of PR we need to get out there and do if we're to be accepted by society as a whole. The only thing I'm hostile to is nonsense. Whether that nonsense is pyramid power, or multi-level marketing, or new-age "alternative medicine", or religion, is immaterial. I react equally dismissively to all forms of nonsense.At EvC, the kind of nonsense that shows up most frequently is God nonsense, which is why you've perceived that to be of particular interest for me. But I assure you that's a misconception. If this were a forum about investigating the claims of alternative medicine, instead, you'd surely see most of my derision, for instance, directed towards homopathic "treatments".Atheists only appear to have a bee in their bonnet about God because theists are always putting God into the discussion. Injecting God into the decision process. Talking about God when we should be talking about policy. Talking about God when we should be talking about science. You can't hardly turn on a TV in America without seeing someone advocating a public policy because "that's what's Godly." God may not be real, but belief in God is very real. That should be obvious. People's belief in God has very real effects on society - effects that I think are bad. The less people could be convinced - honestly convinced by sense, not forced - that there's no such thing as God, the better. What inequality? You theists. Surely you're not now claiming not to be a theist?

Would you rather we switch focus? If your intentions have become skewed, the last thing I want to see is your thread hijacked.I understand the atheist mind because, although I once characterized myself as an agnostic, I had only done so because it was illogical in my mind to refer to myself as an atheist given the nature of the definitions. I was so invigorated by it that I'm branded to this day with a sacrilegious tattoo.But God had other plans for me. Though I didn't know it before, when I look back in retrospect, I see a very careful and methodical orchestration in my life. I find that the old cliche about finding God is every bit true. At least for myself, anyhow. Yes, that is very commendable. I apologize if I allowed for my own skepticism to get in the way of a perfectly good introspection. Certainly. But I wonder if he is drawing false parallels as I feel many people invariably do. Its easy to pass the blame on something relatively indentifiable like religion for all the abject misery in the world. And to a large degree, religiosity is a perfect avenue for perils to come through. But to me, the fact that even religion can go astray is simply evidence of a much bigger problem-- the problem of the self in the face of evil. Its a dangerous proposition to assume that religion is the cause of true evil just as much as its a dangerous proposition to assume that atheism is the cause of true evil. And that is because such problems do not exist in and of themselves. These are simply the mechanisms with which the terrors of the human heart manifest themselves. In other words, to subsume or conflate these avenues as the cause of such things is a mistake, IMO. Granted. Perhaps. However, is that laudable to you? When looking at your son, in all his wonder and splendor; does mere biology encapsulate all of that? Is there a sense that it is cheapened within you to reduce your son to to particles and chemicals? I'm not saying that you necessarily do. But surely you are mindful that many people do, whether unwittingly or intentionally. From a psychological point of view, do you suppose that either reducing our personalities to synapses in the brain, or leaning too heavily on some metaphysical approach is a comfort mechanism? Or is there truth in both? I'll quote from the clip that I posted at the top of this page. Bare in mind it only makes sense when viewing in the atheistic mindset."If evil is illusionary, then so is good. If good is illusionary then why do anything good in this world? So, I don't think it is us because we are not united in what we consider evil. So A will disagree with B and if A says to B, 'it is all just us,' B will have to say that, 'maybe your your way of thinking is not my way of thinking, and who arbitrates that?' There is no way to do away with evil as illusion without doing away with any decent act as illusionary too, and making this world a complete repetition of meaningless acts." -Ravi ZachariasI don't think it is a stretch for me to say that atheists view morality in relative terms. Its also not a stretch for me to say that the predominant atheistic view is that life is ultimately purposeless and directionless. If this is true, then as Mr. Zacharias says, we are simply living out repetitive, meaningless acts, and so, why do anything characterized as good? What would it even mean in a meaningless world? I doubt them too. I just want to drive home the point that for some reason, many people don't realize just how much faith plays an enormous role in their lives-- and yet we sometimes speak about it as if it were beneath us. Why do you suppose that is? That may very well be, but at some point you are trusting and ultimately deferring to what we might otherwise call, "expert testimony." That's an appeal to authority-- something categorically listed as a fallacious argument by many in the atheistic community. My view is similar, in that, atheism claims that there is no good reason to assume God exists, therefore, its reality lends no more credence than invisible, flying, purple elephants. When I was an agnostic, I used to make the argument that Bertrand Russell had made-- that in order for me to believe in God, I needed a primer. I needed something that would initiate the belief.So, in a very real sense, I was certainly leaning towards the atheistic world view. However, agnostics have a very good point which inevitably led me to follow their rationale. When an atheist declares that there is no God, he is essentially making a positive affirmation that God does not exist. But it is an impossibility to disprove a negative. Therefore, I reasoned that it was much more prudent to be an agnostic which claims that a belief in God is either unknowable altogether, or I simply hadn't my primer. I opted to remain open and objective.Years later I would receive my primer.

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

Well, that's certainly a misrepresentation of Dawkins' thesis, as well as a strawman. Nobody's trying to lay all evils at the feet of religion.But it's undeniable that religion comes with negative consequences. I don't see how anybody can open a newspaper in these times and deny that. Asking if whether or not religion has benefits that outweigh the negatives isn't an unreasonable question, and if the answer turns out to be "no, it doesn't", then I think it's appropriate to consider how we might shrug off the burden of religion while still preserving individual dignity. It can't be denied, though, that religion gives these terrors opportunities that they would not otherwise have. When a man in China kills two women because he can fetch a higher price for them as "ghost brides", it's impossible to say that religion wasn't the sole factor in that murder. Absent religion, there was no reason for that crime. Every atheist here is telling you that, yes, it is a stretch. Why aren't you listening? As I told you before, this is a contradiction in terms. To assert that something doesn't exist is, by definition, to make a negative assertion.

In all honesty, I realize that I cannot disprove Loki. I don't have any good reason to believe in Loki either. I guess that would have made me an agnostic had I not already believed in a God.You can't be an atheist to one God, and a believer to another. They cancel each other out since atheism is defined as a belief in no gods or anything supernatural.

---

"Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it... At the centre of me is always an eternally terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains." -Bertrand Russell

That's simply dodging the question. I refuse to believe that you are so obtuse that you didn't know what I meant. I didn't ask what you could prove. I asked what you believe. These are two different questions.Your reply is disappointing, but not unexpected. It's a question I have posed many times to people who say that the absence of evidence is an insufficient reason to believe that no gods exist. They usually reply as you did, claiming that they leave open the possiblity that Loki, or Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, might indeed exist. I find that response disingenuous at best and simply an outright falsehood at worst. But of course, it is the response that all theists must give, unless they are willing to concede that the atheist position that no gods exist is a rational one.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

By asking why Dawkins pursues, with a particular ardor, things that don't exist?

---

Dawkins doesn't persue things that don't exist.Dawkins counters theists and thesism, both of which exist.

If I knew where to start, I would be happy to oblige. It's the type of thing which would get laughed out of court. Yet, in a courtroom, one makes decisions based on things like motive, opportunity, lack of alibi. It does not take empirical evidence in every case. My best explanation is that, based on what I feel and what I see around me, men are at once living as if they are immortal, but talking about the one life they have to live. It is very strange, IMO, to be so hesitant to really embrace life to the fullest degree. There is some contradiction in what we proclaim and what we actually do. Even people of faith succomb to this contradictory way of life. Why is it so easy for men to act as if they will live forever? Does this mean anything? Maybe it is a throwback to the days when we were truly oblivious to our own mortality, as animals may be. To me, it is a vital clue for discovering our purpose, if indeed we have one. To sum up, I have had a nagging feeling that we are missing something in this life...it comes and goes with personal levels of fulfillment...but in general this is part of my reason for believing that there is 'more' to what we see. There are perhaps dozens of explanations I can put on this from a purely evolutionary point of view.A drive towards an unknown 'better' may be very advantageous in a species in terms of survival. It has its limits. It depends on who you ask. I don't so much not believe in these alternate dieties, as feel that those who did believe in them were seeing a precursor or a variety of the same God. If God makes revelations all over the world, and leaves the interpretation up to humans, in some way what we see of all religions may be a reflection of Who God is. It is not so much that I don't believe in other Gods, as that I don't believe the other gods are as accurate a representation of God. If you believe in the supernatural, you believe it. There are many variations and some don't involve gods at all. They may simply involve spirits of the once living. Once you start to think about what exactly is supernatural, you can narrow things down to how you perceive the concept. It's not that I don't believe in Loki, it is that I don't believe that the idea of Loki as a God is useful for me. Therefore, Loki is not my God. And I daresay that Phat's God and nj's God and Iano's God and Rob's God and jar's God, etc, etc, etc, are not my God either. They have similarities, perhaps, since we all follow the Bible, and they are not more than one God necessarily either. But the way I see God is as a Being that is more than Loki, or Thor, or Zeus, or Mercury, put together. Some of the earlier forms of religion had given different attributes to different beings. It is useful, but not necessary. You may find that many Christians are giving different attributes to God without even knowing it. I answered this above as well as I could. What is interesting is that nem_jug and others have been atheists before, whereas I have not. It might be neat to have a topic about levels of atheism. I don't know if nem for example ever called himself atheist, or if he did, what he meant by this. I do know personally that I have behaved as an atheist in my life. I did not proclaim atheism.Now, this is interesting. I say I behaved as an atheist. What the hell do I mean? What I really mean is that I behaved as a bad Catholic. I did immoral things, according to my religion. I went against my religion. This does NOT make me an atheist. But let's examine; if I act as though I believe there is no God...and believe me I have done it all, from promiscuity, to abortion, to drugs, to drink, to skipping church, does this make me an atheist? I think not. I think it is part of acting as though you are immortal. Acting as though you 'know' you have time to repent. When a Christian looks back on past bad behaviour, they feel that they have been atheist. They feel that they have denied their belief in God. I mean, if I really believed in God and His judgement, would I be able to depart from His rules? People are far less willing to depart from laws and secular rules because they obviously believe in policemen. Basically, in going aginst what I believe, I claimed that my beliefs were less than I was...that I could start beleiving them again at my own whim. But God is not subject to my whims...and I wonder, when people who are Chistian condemn atheism, if they are looking through their own goggles, and seeing the same hypocrisy that they felt when they denied God and yet believed in Him?We see ourselves as Peters. We have been with God and have known Him. Then, we suddenly act as if this never happened...and we imagine we are on the same page as those who never knew God. That is perhaps why polls may show distrust in atheists. It's really not like that, though, is it?

I think I can get into that. I don't beleive in Zeus because Zeus doesn't make enough sense to me. Zeus makes some sense, but not enough. I am sure you know that this is not a purely physical world...but I assume you mean purely natural. I believe as well that this is a natural world, but I have super-imposed a super-natural.We may have a painting that is black, all black, or one which is all white. I try to have a painting that uses all color, but is glossed over. In other words there is a medium which is imposed upon and binds the whole, as a painter will varnish his work...and there are also other mediums which are heavy and obscuring of the painter's intention. They muddle the details...leave them prey to discussion. It is the difference between a net and a sack. Even a net can be too binding. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

A what?

While I was growing up, the definition of "athiesm" was the belief that God didn't exist. Today, for me, that is referred to as "Strong Atheism". This position is as illogical as theism in that we cannot exactly KNOW that god exists or not. I happen to believe that he does. Atheists happen to believe that he doesn't. But to say, as a matter of fact, that he does or does not exist is equally illogical."Weak atheism", or the lack of a belief in gods, is not as illogical as atheism (or theism). But, all I see it as is a lack of quote/un-quote "evidence". The atheist has no reason to believe in gods, so he doesn't.Now, take the thiest, the one who does have a reason. I could be either a false or true reason but nobody can know, for sure, what the individual's reason is (unless they tell you, I guess). Maybe they only believe because were raised that way... Maybe god personally spoke to them... Maybe it is something in-between. How can anyone know?How can an atheist claim that, because they cannot see the evidence themselves, that the evidence must not exist? Or that the evidense must be from some source other than god. Is this an Argument from Incredulity? Has "evidence" been defined in a way that preculdes God's evidense from qualifying? No, not necessariy but I do think that it makes it easier. I've been on that path and once considered myself an atheist.Still though, I couldn't honestly say that I thought that god did not exist. It really seems to me that a god does exist.On top of that I realized that Jesus really did know what he was talking about and came to the belief that he really was the son of God.After that, I figured that I might as well just call myself "Catholic" again sense that was the way I was raised and Confirmed(TM). Nope. I still, sortof, consider atheism to be the belief that god does not exist and consider the lack of belief in gods as closer to agnosticism. But to appease my athiest friends here, who prefer to call themselves athiests, I have changes my definition of atheism to suit them.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

Who has? Keep whomping that straw-atheist, but I don't see where a single thing you'vre written has anything to do with atheism as practiced.

I've heard this argument many times, and it still puzzles me. You seem to be sliding into an act of equivocation, where an atheist stating his belief that God does not exist somehow becomes a claim of fact. Further, it is the theist making extraordinary claims about realms beyond our direct knowledge: is it equally illogical to believe and not to believe in ghosts?Further, it is not illogical to base a belief on something less than irrefutable proof: we do it all the time, maybe even most of the time. In jurisprudence and in science, we make decisions about what to believe based on the preponderance of evidence. Very few of our beliefs are supported by irrefutable proof.It seems to me that the theist and the atheist are in quite different positions here: the theist establishes premises based on experience, privileged evidence not replicable by disinterested others; the atheist, in contrast, considers both the lack of replicable, positive evidence for the existence of gods as well as the steadily mounting negative evidence of natural explanations for phenomena once ascribed to gods.Any conclusion can be logically valid once the necessary premises are accepted. Rather, the issue is what evidence supports the divergent premises. If the contest is one of well-supported premises, the atheist wins hands down.Theists are ill-advised to go tilting at atheists on the field of evidence and logic.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

That's because you'd rather nit-pick semantics than address agruments.The point was that evidence of god is ruled as non-evidense a priori, when I said:

quote:

---

the evidense must be from some source other than god.

---

A Secular Humanist must believe that the reasons people believe in god aren't unnatural, by definition. If there were unnatural reason to believe in god then a S.H. would never admit to them.The straw man I created was more agianst "Strong Atheism" than "Weak". Of course I realize that some poeple don't believe that that some things must be so.

The whole point of me distinguishing between "Stong" and "Weak" atheism was to avoid this claim. Yes, unless you've seen a ghost. Yes, it is "ilogical". But that is beside the point. I agree. I don't have any "real" evidence for my theism, only my own subjective 'reasons'. Do you not agree that "Strong Atheism" is illogical?