Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism Examined
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 300 (389233)
03-11-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
03-10-2007 10:22 AM


Is atheism a logically viable position? If not why not?
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?
Do atheists necessarily lack a firm sense of the moral and immoral?
No, not necessariy but I do think that it makes it easier.
I started along this path with a general dissatisfaction with organised religion and some scientific training that fostered in me the attitude that tentative, evidence based research was the only reliable method to evaluate supposed truths about the world.
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).
Do atheists and non-atheists have the same view of what exactly atheism is??
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 03-10-2007 10:22 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 03-11-2007 11:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 73 by Omnivorous, posted 03-11-2007 11:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2007 3:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 175 by Straggler, posted 03-13-2007 6:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 300 (389239)
03-11-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
03-11-2007 11:15 PM


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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 03-11-2007 11:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:02 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 300 (389240)
03-12-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Omnivorous
03-11-2007 11:21 PM


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.
The whole point of me distinguishing between "Stong" and "Weak" atheism was to avoid this claim.
is it equally illogical to believe and not to believe in ghosts?
Yes, unless you've seen a ghost.
Further, it is not illogical to base a belief on something less than irrefutable proof:
Yes, it is "ilogical". But that is beside the point.
the issue is what evidence supports the divergent premises. If the contest is one of well-supported premises, the atheist wins hands down.
I agree. I don't have any "real" evidence for my theism, only my own subjective 'reasons'.
Theists are ill-advised to go tilting at atheists on the field of evidence and logic.
Do you not agree that "Strong Atheism" is illogical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Omnivorous, posted 03-11-2007 11:21 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Omnivorous, posted 03-12-2007 12:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 300 (389244)
03-12-2007 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by crashfrog
03-12-2007 12:02 AM


Wow, you really are an asshole, aren't you?
why haven't you responded to any one of the 70 or so posts already in this thread, many of which deal with the false construction of so-called "strong atheism"?
Because I didn't read them. I only responded to the OP, no?
Why didn't you hear me when I told you that atheists don't believe what you say they believe?
So I'm mistaken that Secular Humanists attribute the belief in gods to natural causes?
there's no "evidence from God", I don't know what you're talking about. There's absolutely no evidence for God whatsoever, from God or from any other source.
LOL, my point exactly. "I don't see the evidence so it doesn't exist." Looks like the Argument from Incredulity in a way even though I realize that is not considered it.
When you're prepared to discuss atheists that actually exist you'll find many posts in this thread worth responding to. Or did you think the discussion doesn't start until you show up?
Myabe I'll go back and read your posts and respond to those, but if you feel like nit-picking the semantics in my posts anyways...feel free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 300 (389246)
03-12-2007 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
03-10-2007 1:16 PM


Re: Not Really
There's no such thing as "active disbelief." You don't take an action to disbelieve; you just don't believe.
I guess that's where our difference of oppinion occurs.
We all disbelieve in what we're ignorant of. The result is the same.
I don't think the result is the same.
Being ignorant of something is not the same as disbelieving something you are knowlegeble of, IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 03-10-2007 1:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 300 (389249)
03-12-2007 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Omnivorous
03-12-2007 12:24 AM


You are mistaken on both counts. Logic is a GIGO machine, a sausage grinder that can produce great links or pure baloney. Expecting it to deliver certainty is a profound error.
That's fine. We can agree on that point.
I think your strong v. weak distinction muddies the water around what 'belief' means.
How so?
I find a distinction between a positive disblief and a lack of belief in the same as there is a distinction between -1 and 0.
But, no, even taking your term at face value, 'strong' atheism is not illogical.
How so?
How can you logically conclude that it is a fact that something does not exists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Omnivorous, posted 03-12-2007 12:24 AM Omnivorous has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 300 (389251)
03-12-2007 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
03-12-2007 12:36 AM


I just get tired of having to repeat myself.
Then don't reply to post that address argument that you have already responded to.
Is there something wrong with your web browser that prevented you from reading the previous 70 posts?
No. I just replied to the opening post without reading a single other post in the thread. Is there something wrong with that? Must I read the whole thread before replying to the OP?
No, but that's not what you said, is it?
Nope, that's what I said.
it's improper to conflate secular humanism with atheism.
I didn't. Sorry for breaking the rule, but I was responding to you personally, knowing your beliefs.
What evidence am I not seeing? If you've presented any, it hasn't been in this thread or in any other you've participated in.
Again. La-la-la, I don't see the evidence. Its just like the Argument from Incredulity.
Of course the onus is on me to provide evidence if I wanted to be persuasive, but we are simply defining "atheism", not proving god exists.
Tell me, CS, is it typical of true things that they're supported by unspecified, invisible "evidence"? Or rather, isn't that more typically true of things that are false?
It is typical of true things that they're supported by specific, visible evidence.
It is typical of false things to be supported by unspecific, invisible "evidence".
Happy now?
This has nothing to do with the logical support for "Strong Atheism", even if that is not what the majority of atheist, in general, believe. Lack of evidence is NOT evidense of absense as we all know, logically.
One of the reasons that I'm an atheist is that even theists don't act like theism is true. Why does every theist act like they have something to hide when it comes to theism?
We don't have anything to hide from each other. We only have a "percieved" thing to hide from people who reject the "evidence" a prioiri. But of course that is practically meaningless to atheists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 300 (389252)
03-12-2007 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
03-12-2007 12:40 AM


Re: Not Really
Why? What's the difference? If a claim isn't supported by evidence, why does it matter whether or not you heard the claim in the first place? Whether or not you know about the claim has nothing to do with its veracity.
Because "I" am the one forming the belief.
It doesn't have anything to do with the truth of the claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:40 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 300 (389257)
03-12-2007 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
03-12-2007 12:57 AM


(Suffice to say, absence of evidence is evidence of absence by any accepted evidentiary standard.
For practical purposes, yes.
It's understood that this reasoning is logically fallacious, but so is all scientific reasoning
You just conceded my point about "Strong Atheism".
Now, onto the point about actual atheism....
I can't reject what hasn't been presented. You don't even claim to have presented any evidence! How can it possibly be meaningful to claim that atheists are rejecting "a priori" what you admit you haven't even put forth? I mean, what exactly are atheists rejecting
Any edvidence that I would present (for the existance of something supernatural) would be automatically attributed to something natural, a priori, by the definitions of your belief so you can't even be "presented" with evidence in the first place.
P.S. I'm going to bed now. Further replies will be tomorrow if I have time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 1:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 300 (389258)
03-12-2007 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
03-12-2007 12:58 AM


Re: Not Really
LOL, is that your way of admitting that you were wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2007 12:58 AM crashfrog has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 300 (390226)
03-19-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Straggler
03-13-2007 6:48 PM


Re: Atheists Again
Nature as we observe it on this planet and as far as we can tell the vastness of the universe are all compatible with a uncaring naturalistic, mechanistic view of the universe.
Not in my opinion. I feel like there is something more to my existance that is not explained by an uncaring naturalistic, mechanistic view of the universe. This starts me on the path to theism.
They are not compatible with a benevolent god of any sort.
I like to think of god as just too, which is kinda hard to mix with benevolence.
I think I understand the path you have been on to arrive back at Catholicism - BUT - doesn't it strike you as convenient that at the end of your journey you end up back within the realms of the beliefs with which you were raised and indoctrinated?? Why Jesus and not Allah? Why is it God and not Muhammed or Buddha that eventually showed the path to enlightenment?
Sure, its convenient, but the specifics once we get past theism are not really that important for this thread. I mean, all that stuff depends on being theist first.
Atheism as I describe it is the only rational way in the absence of being persoanlly 'touched' by faith in some way.
I'm not sure if I was "touched" or not, but there are other experiences besides the unexplained that point me in the direction of theism.
Things can start you on the path and point you in the direction but I think that at some point you do have to take a leap to get to theism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Straggler, posted 03-13-2007 6:48 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by ringo, posted 03-19-2007 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 300 (390228)
03-19-2007 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
03-12-2007 3:27 AM


A firm sense of right and wrong makes it easier to become an atheist.
My point was that if I was an atheist, it would be easier for me to be immoral.
As for whatever personal reasons lead people to religion it is not necessary to "see" this evidence to know that it is hugely unreliable
Yes, especially with specific religions. But for theism, in general, the reliability improves, even if it is just a little bit. The specifics of a particular religion aren't that important for a discustion about theism/atheism.
A god needn't wait centuries for misisonaries to reach remote parts of the world !
Maybe that's the best way to do it, in god's opinion. We can't really say how god shoudl have or should not have done things.
So to simply say that this "evidence" is dismissed because it cannot be examined is wrong.
Sometimes its ruled as non-evidence a priori. It is refused to be examined, not incapable of examination.
It may be examined indirectly and it is clearly wanting.
It certainly seems that way

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2007 3:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2007 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 214 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2007 3:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 300 (390684)
03-21-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by PaulK
03-21-2007 3:44 AM


Which only suggests that you lack a firm sense of right and wrong.
Hypothetically, maybe my sense is firm but I choose to do wrong... or I just don't care if I do wrong.
I don't really see a reason to do right other than because its the right thing to do. So what?
I didn't not steal a PS3 from Wal*Mart because I thought it was immoral. I didn't do it because I didn't want to get arrested.
Take the law away and I'd have a PS3. I don't really care about the immorality of that action because I think Wal*Mart is a piece of shit. I think stealing is immoral and that it is not the right thing to do, but if I don't care about being immoral (and if it isn't illegal) then why not?
You have to assume that whatever is behind it all is unreliable on practically everything other than the bare existence of gods for that to make sense.
Heh, that is kinda what I was thinking.
Which doesn't really make a lot of sense, for instance, if you assume that it's divine revelation.
Well, I wasn't thinking that specifically...
Shit, I gotta go....
I'll explain myself better later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2007 3:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2007 3:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 218 by Stile, posted 03-22-2007 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 300 (390705)
03-21-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by PaulK
03-21-2007 3:11 PM


So Brian's right - at least in your case.
In that case, yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by PaulK, posted 03-21-2007 3:11 PM PaulK has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 300 (390853)
03-22-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Stile
03-22-2007 10:27 AM


Re: Does that hypothetically make you a bad person? Yes.
But without any religious rules to also follow it is more difficult for an atheist to do good, just because it's good.
But when they do good for no reason other than it is the right thing to do, then they are morally superior to the theist who does good just to avoid punishment.
I don't really see a reason to do right other than because its the right thing to do. So what?
That is all most people need. To do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do.
I don't think that is true. I think that most people are bad and need an incentive to do good.
Some people are good people, they do not need laws or preventative measures to "keep them in line" or to allow them to work with others in a productive manner in which society can thrive and grow.
I see a distinction between being a bad person and "getting out of line". You could be a bad person and be productive and not distrupt society, etc. "Getting out of line" is the extreme case of a bad person. Without laws we'd have to rely on one of the good guys to take out the bad guys.
Some people (like this hypothetical you) are bad people. They are selfish and uncaring. Laws are needed to curb their personal desires so that they too can work in a productive manner in society and still help it to thrive and grow. Without those laws, these bad people would destroy society and we would never have progressed to the point we are today in technological development or international relations or health care or even personal polite-ness.
The same goes for religions.
But without any religious rules to also follow it is more difficult for an atheist to do good, just because it's good.
Yeah, if that's the only reason, I think I would find it a lot easier to be one of the bad guys.
If I was an atheist, it would be easier for me to be immoral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Stile, posted 03-22-2007 10:27 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Stile, posted 03-22-2007 11:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024