Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

[Quietus]

And who said God was an entity? Love, fear, electromagnetism, are these entities? No. Do they exist? Yes.

I invite you to please elaborate the definition of God which you are using.

I'm an atheist, I have no definition of God. I'm using theist's definition.

You're a theist. What's your definition of God?

[InsaneApache]

[Aenlic]

This is the crux of the whole issue, Aenlic. The goal of science is to explain the universe-- but the goal of religion is to guide the human soul.

You have a rock. You can use science to determine how heavy it is. You can use science to determine its spacial dimensions. You can use science to determine its approximate mineral and then chemical composition, and its likely geological origins.

But what do you do with it? Science has no answer.

Do you throw the rock? Make it into a tool? Save it? Leave it? You could do any of those things, and science might possibly be a tool you use to help you make your decision-- depending on its size and composition, it might be better suited for one use than another, for example. You could even analyze yourself, your motives and needs, chart the probabilities of your different potential decisions, then, after the decision, repeat the analysis and provide a hypothesis as to why that particular decision was taken.

But the decision is still up to you. How will you be able to make that decision, if science can provide no clear answers?

You will, of course, even with such a trivial decision as this, revert back to your own irrational assumptions and motivations to provide the impulse to decide on an action. These assumptions and motivations are as unique as you are yourself. Indeed science, as an analytical tool, can be used to help describe them. But it cannot shape them. It cannot mould them. This is the role of religion.

Basically, Del Arroyo, your argument boils down to your concern for the soul of the rock, and mine basically states I don't care if the rock has a soul, it isn't something important.

You seem stuck on this idea of science. Perhaps you've confused my arguments with someone else's? I haven't said science, I believe. If I did, it was only in passing. I've very carefully used broader terms. You've chosen to deliberately misstate my position. As for ethics and morals, you are making broad and entirely baseless assumptions that they require religion to be valid. This is no more sensible than religion itself. The basis of all human interaction is self-interest and mutual benefit, the later because self-interest when thought through fully implies mutual benefit since no one can survive long alone. It's a function of society. You claim on the other hand that morals and ethics derive solely from some nebulous, immaterial and ultimately unverifiable source outside yourself. If that makes you feel more comfortable with your self-interest, then fine for you. I don't need that crutch.

Tell me, Aenlic, does your mother really love you, or does she merely act on the selfish biological instinct to protect her own genetic material? Try as you might, the scientific process cannot provide an answer to such a question. Assumptions and terms could be defined, and experiments designed, but in the end no matter what they resulted in it would be entirely irrelevant to a matter which depends wholly on your own heart, and your own soul.

Incorrect assumptions again. How do you know that love isn't exactly that - a selfish biological instinct? You don't. You make unprovable assumptions based on belief in an unprovable system. And yes, since you insist on making this a question of science versus mystical belief, science may one day very well be able to determine exactly what the biological basis is for emotions. Science is already close, in fact. Deny it all you like, it is coming. But it isn't just science which pushes that edge. It's rational thought and critical thinking. We don't need religion to be ethical, we don't need religion to feel emotion, we don't need religion to look at the stars and wonder how they were made. Well, many of us don't, I should say. Some still need that nightlight and favorite blankie to protect them from the unknown.

[Del Arroyo]

All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.

At any rate, I have more to say and respond to, but I think I'll step back for a little while to see if anyone else wants to take up the non-atheist side.

[Kagemusha]

Blah,Blah and blah. Believe in what you want and give others the same privledge.Sometimes i think there are atleast as many preachermen in atheist´s as there in religious persons.

[Reenk Roink]

Look people, depending on which epistemically basic assumptions you make, you are going to branch off into differing views, and even if two people share the same basic assumptions, they may have radically differing paradigms. People are apt to place their belief system higher than others, and that's how it is always going to be.

Let's all leave it at that, eat some ice cream, and celebrate Michigan's trip to the BCS Championship.

[Claudius the God]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Atheists are hypocrites. They pretend superiority to those with irrational beliefs, based on their own irrational belief in the non-existence of a God.

Theists are just as hypocritical in their argument that this thing (whatever deity) exists without any evidence to support the notion.

Also, Atheist does not mean the belief in the non-existence of gods, it is the Absense of belief in the existence of gods. please note the difference.
Again it's about how you define god/deity. if you define it as an something as unsubstantial as an 'idea', then it exists because ideas exist, if you define a god/deity as something in the physical world or involved in the workings of the physical world, then it is unproven.

Many self-proclaimed adherents of humanism are also hypocritical, claiming to be freed of the shackles of dogma, only to go on writing up tomes upon tomes of their own dogmatic points.

Sumanist or secular ethics as put down on paper are answers to theistic accusations that non-religious people have no ethics or morals... and unlike dogma, Secular ethics can adapt and improve with time.

I think Reenk Doink got it right in noting that Reason itself must be accepted irrationally. I would caution all of my fellow Org-ahs to take care in selecting the principles by which to live their lives-- at their core, these principles cannot be rational. If you pretend that they are rational, you are fooling yourself, and may be in danger of basing your entire life on false, failed products of circular deception, far, far away from that which is Right and True.

fine, but so what? - even if Rationalism/secularism is somehow terribly flawed (I have yet to see any evidence of this), what alternative can said to be really better?

Why should we become theists? why should we change and adopt faith over reason? I have yet to see any good reason why... certainly no an ethical reasons and certainly no an intellectual reasons...

Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time is called the Dark Ages. ~ Richard Lederer

Scientifically speaking, God cannot be disproven, therefore the question itself is outside the realm of scientific investigation. The scientific process is a very useful tool for explaining our world but it lacks much as a basis for life philosophy.

God can neither be proven nor disproven. Therefore Atheism is just as likely an answer to 'the question' as Theism.

This is the crux of the whole issue, Aenlic. The goal of science is to explain the universe-- but the goal of religion is to guide the human soul.

that's assuming the 'soul' exists...

You will, of course, even with such a trivial decision as this, revert back to your own irrational assumptions and motivations to provide the impulse to decide on an action. These assumptions and motivations are as unique as you are yourself. Indeed science, as an analytical tool, can be used to help describe them. But it cannot shape them. It cannot mould them. This is the role of religion.

so you're saying that science is used to develop new ideas and understand things, while religion is used to control society...?

while I agree to some extent, I don't think that secular ethics are any less effective than religious ethics when it comes to improving social problems.

All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.

if science and logic and rationality are based on unprovable assumptions, then what does that say about faith and religion? - it certainly doesn't make faith or religion any more substantial or realistic...

-------------
there are some quite interresting quotes here (both for the theistic arguments and atheistic arguments)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/God

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atheism

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religion

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Irreligious

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Agnosticism


-----------

A new question for the Secular people here: What religious faiths do you like or find interresting or amusing?


I like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (and it's offshoots), and Jediism, and Unitarian Universalism...

[Mithrandir]

What religious faiths do you like or find interresting or amusing?

I like Buddhism. Can't recall violence from buddhists, I can from christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I like Buddhism. Can't recall violence from buddhists, I can from christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc.

Try starting here.

Mankind finds a way, whatever their motivations or supposed beliefs.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I like Buddhism. Can't recall violence from buddhists, I can from christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc.

Warrior monks!

[Watchman]

One world-religion overview book I read for an university exam seemed to almost delight in the interesting case of a Sri Lankan prince who pretty much stuck a Buddhist relic on his spear and went on what amounts to a crusade against his Hindu neighbours but a few centuries after old Gautama left this plane of existence. And the Japanese temples notoriously liked to settle their disputes with private armies, which were also employed to bully temporal authorities from time to time.

Not that the basically pacifistic undercurrents of Buddhism ever particularly kept its adherents from donning their war gear and ventilating their neighbours anyway. Sort of how Christians were awfully quick to forget the early "one cannot be both a soldier and a Soldier of God at once" idea right fast after the Roman Empire went officially Christian, I guess.

[Beirut]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?

"Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"

[Quietus]

All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.

At any rate, I have more to say and respond to, but I think I'll step back for a little while to see if anyone else wants to take up the non-atheist side.

The reason why I'm asking you these questions:
1. Name any 'thing' that does not exist.
2. Why do you say it does not exist?
3. What's the difference between this 'thing' and God

is if you say X 'does not exist' and God 'exists', and at the same time cannot tell the difference between X and God, then:

You cannot tell the difference with 'what exists' and 'what do not exist' even from your very own account!

[Mithrandir]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?

"Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"

They just shout out my name.


ok, too easy

[Del Arroyo]

Theists are just as hypocritical in their argument that this thing (whatever deity) exists without any evidence to support the notion.

Theists do not suppose that proof is necessary. Therefore, while theists may be irrational, they are not hypocritical, at least in this sense. Atheists, however, do assume that proof is necessary, and are therefore both irrational and hypocritical.

Sumanist or secular ethics as put down on paper are answers to theistic accusations that non-religious people have no ethics or morals... and unlike dogma, Secular ethics can adapt and improve with time.
...
while I agree to some extent, I don't think that secular ethics are any less effective than religious ethics when it comes to improving social problems.

Secular ethics are religion. They just bow to a different God.

that's assuming the 'soul' exists...

"Soul" is useful shorthand used to refer to a complicated interaction of natural phenomena which most definitely do exist.

so you're saying that science is used to develop new ideas and understand things, while religion is used to control society...?

More like science provides the What and religion provides the Why. I also personally see a large distinction between "religion" and "organized religion".

if science and logic and rationality are based on unprovable assumptions, then what does that say about faith and religion? - it certainly doesn't make faith or religion any more substantial or realistic...

This is my point. Science and logic are tools. Theism is a faith. Atheism is also a faith. This is why I think it is so empty-- it claims to "free" one from "faith" and "God", but it is really no different from any other system of belief. Furthermore, it is completely missing the point with regards to the origin and the nature of religion of both religion and scientific investigation.

..

As a personal disclaimer, I do not have a particularly strong faith in anything, and, if pressed, I would probably term much of the story of Christ (for one example) and church rituals as "superstition". But I do know that there is something bigger than me, and I do take the time now and then to be quiet and listen. These, I think, are two of the important first lessons of religion-- humility, and patience.

"I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Who can argue with that?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We aren't going to get anywhere like this. Your defining religion and science just the way you want to. Since when is religion the why? Your encapsulating too much with that word. You can follow a moral code without being religious, a moral code on it's own is not enough to qualify as a religion.

[Rurik the Chieftain]

All science, logic, even mathematics is based on unprovable assumptions. That is exactly the point-- you have to start somewhere. Reason is a tool, but it is not a reason itself.

At any rate, I have more to say and respond to, but I think I'll step back for a little while to see if anyone else wants to take up the non-atheist side.

Uh, I don't want to double attack you on this, but I felt I needed to get a word in edgewise.

Logic is based on unprovable assumptions. This is true. However, it is where these assumptions lead and how they relate to each other that is important. This is the only way we can "judge" which assumption is "better" and which can be discarded. Material results matter if you don't just care about an argument. As far as I can tell, not much modern progress has been created out of instinct.

[Pindar]

Also, Atheist does not mean the belief in the non-existence of gods, it is the Absense of belief in the existence of gods. please note the difference.

Hi Claudius,

Your thread keeps moving on, Del Arroyo is under attack on several fronts. The above is a definition of atheism, but it is not a very good one. It lacks any critical distinction: there is no way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, an atheist and an infant, or even a hedgehog. Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.

[Aenlic]

"I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Who can argue with that?

Who can argue with it? For several thousand years, most of the population of the world would argue with it, except for a very small group/cult of people living in relatively miniscule portion of the world.

Unless, of course, you believe that Jehovah announced his superiority to all the other peoples of the world as well, being all-powerful and such. So, without evidence, you'll claim that Jehovah made that announcement to more than just .001% of the world's population at the time?

[Papewaio]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?

"Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"

Their partner(s) name obviously.

'Oh My Santa/Easter Bunny/Mummy/God' only one of which is testable, and that belongs to the serial killers school of thought.

[Claudius the God]

Theists do not suppose that proof is necessary. Therefore, while theists may be irrational, they are not hypocritical, at least in this sense. Atheists, however, do assume that proof is necessary, and are therefore both irrational and hypocritical.

proof isn't necessary, only evidence... the problem is that there isn't even any realistic evidence...

Secular ethics are religion. They just bow to a different God.

Secular society neither has religion, nor bows, nor has gods...

"Soul" is useful shorthand used to refer to a complicated interaction of natural phenomena which most definitely do exist.

the theistic idea of the 'Soul' has little evidence to support it.

This is my point. Science and logic are tools. Theism is a faith. Atheism is also a faith. This is why I think it is so empty-- it claims to "free" one from "faith" and "God", but it is really no different from any other system of belief. Furthermore, it is completely missing the point with regards to the origin and the nature of religion of both religion and scientific investigation.

nonsense... religion and faith claim intellectual superiority through 'divinely revealed knowledge', while Science is skeptical and works to become more accurate and is constantly improving itself in answering important questions.

"I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Who can argue with that?

I can argue with that... it gives no intellectual nor moral reason why we should have no other God, nor any God at all...

Hi Claudius,

Your thread keeps moving on, Del Arroyo is under attack on several fronts. The above is a definition of atheism, but it is not a very good one. It lacks any critical distinction: there is no way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, an atheist and an infant, or even a hedgehog. Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.

Hi Pindar,

I agree with much of what you're saying... in context of the earlier argument, we were talking about the fundamental scientific interpretation on the question of the existence of God/s - about fundamental evidence and therefore the basic hypothesis. When it comes down to it, the lack of evidence leads to an absense in the belief in god rather than in the belief that there is no god. this reasoning is about what the fundamental evidence (that is, the lack of evidence) leads to. there would have to be evidence for the non-existence of god in order to scientifically justify 'strong' Atheism.

the scientific evidence that Gods and superstitions are artificial - constructed by humans - is still debatable - it goes into a great deal of psychology and social sciences and investigates why many people believe in God/s and the supernatural. psychological sciences, especially in the area of faith, is a difficult field to investigate scientifically...

Strong Atheism is justified by the lengthy arguments that Gods were invented by mankind for social control, comfort, and simple explanations of the unknown (how did the world come to be? what happens when we die? etc...)... and similar functions that superstitions and gods and religions occupied in the development of society...

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but who do atheists talk to during sex?

"Oh... probably non-existent deitical overseer, that feels sooooooo good!"

very funny... this I think is just an expression, not a way in which the atheist communicates with 'god'... I sometimes swear loudly: "God-damn-it" and other similar expressions that are used by many... wouldn't yelling out "Oh God!" during sex be just as "blasphemous" as saying "God=damn-it" when angry...??? - there is no real belief behind the saying, just a way to easily express anger, pain, frustration, and sexual ecstasy...

[Pindar]

Hi Pindar,

I agree with much of what you're saying... in context of the earlier argument, we were talking about the fundamental scientific interpretation on the question of the existence of God/s - about fundamental evidence and therefore the basic hypothesis. When it comes down to it, the lack of evidence leads to an absense in the belief in god rather than in the belief that there is no god. this reasoning is about what the fundamental evidence (that is, the lack of evidence) leads to. there would have to be evidence for the non-existence of god in order to scientifically justify 'strong' Atheism.

Hi Claudius,

The problem with the above is in applying a scientific schema to a decidedly non-scientific object. To attempt to do so is to commit a category mistake. This is so regardless of any evidentiary (or its opposite) appeal.

the scientific evidence that Gods and superstitions are artificial - constructed by humans - is still debatable - it goes into a great deal of psychology and social sciences and investigates why many people believe in God/s and the supernatural. psychological sciences, especially in the area of faith, is a difficult field to investigate scientifically...

Strong Atheism is justified by the lengthy arguments that Gods were invented by mankind for social control, comfort, and simple explanations of the unknown (how did the world come to be? what happens when we die? etc...)... and similar functions that superstitions and gods and religions occupied in the development of society...

The issues with strong atheism I explained are not amenable to psychological, anthropological or any sociological context. The issue is formal: applying to the basic logical structure of the claim. If one posits "there is no god" under a deductive rubric then they beg the question. If one asserts "there is no god" under an inductive schema then they have committed a different fallacy in concluding a universal negative. The logical problems for strong atheism are severe.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hi Claudius,

Your thread keeps moving on, Del Arroyo is under attack on several fronts. The above is a definition of atheism, but it is not a very good one. It lacks any critical distinction: there is no way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, an atheist and an infant, or even a hedgehog. Atheism is a decided position regarding an Absolute. Typically atheism is subdivided into strong and weak forms. Both have their problems. The strong form is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative. The weak forms of atheism reduce to the personal belief of the subject: one simply doesn't believe in god. The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject which is not particularly interesting in itself.

All strong positions on god are illogical. But when someone takes a strong position what can they mean but that they believe it to be true? There's no difference between your strong and weak atheism.

[Pindar]

All strong positions on god are illogical.

No, they are not.

But when someone takes a strong position what can they mean but that they believe it to be true?

The issue is not simply belief that a given X is true, but whether a stance entails an actual claim about reality itself.

There's no difference between your strong and weak atheism.

Yes, there is: one is an absurdity, the other an irrelevancy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, they are not.

Name one then, don't make me post again

The issue is not simply belief that a given X is true, but whether a stance entails an actual claim about reality itself.

What? If I say I believe something how is that not a claim that it is true? No one goes around believing in things they think are false.

Yes, there is: one is an absurdity, the other an irrelevancy.

You should try doing something logically absurd sometime, it's fun. By irrelevancy do you mean god is irrelevant in atheism? If so you are closer than many religious people get. It cracks me up when people take it so seriously.

[Papewaio]

By irrelevancy do you mean god is irrelevant in atheism? If so you are closer than many religious people get. It cracks me up when people take it so seriously.

I think IMDHO by irrelevant Pindar-san means the same irrelevance as someones favourite colour, drink or food has to the universe at large. The question of 'is there a god?' is not answered by an individuals choices, but by a far more universal criteria.

[CrossLOPER]

Name one then, don't make me post again

Was that the reaction to that guy's miss? I would have 'd.

[Quietus]

"Hard Atheism" is not illogical at all.

1) Not if you add it in your premise.

2) It's more of a rejection of a claim (everyone was born at point 0; i.e no belief). Without theists there would be no atheists.

It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all.

Pindar, I know you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way (i.e does not follow the laws of physics hence undetectable). Well, your brain is physical, it only responds to the laws of physics.

And you do not want to share what God is telling you since it is akin to casting "pearls before/unto swine" (I don't know what that means and I don't exactly remember the phrase).

Then, what language is God using (given you understood the message), since you're saying God communicates with you, and hence there's a metaphysical signal albeit is undetectable?

Lastly, there are only two Christians I know that that claim that God is sending signals straight to their head, that's you and Pat Robertson.

Am I right to be skeptical since the other Orgahs aren't receiving this signals and Pat Robertson is certainly sharing these personal messages to the world?

[Aenlic]

Don't worry, Pindar! It's still possible to protect yourself and rejoin rational humanity. It'll just take a little bit of effort. Like this:

[Pindar]

Name one then, don't make me post again

Kojiro my good man, If you are familiar with the literature on the subject a variety of examples should come to mind. If you are not then your earlier comment was presumptive. In any case, as a simple example I'll give you a form of an argument that finds reference in Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz.

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

The above is a simple valid argument.

The issue is not simply belief that a given X is true, but whether a stance entails an actual claim about reality itself.

What? If I say I believe something how is that not a claim that it is true? No one goes around believing in things they think are false.

You do not understand. To say "I believe X" the predicate reflects back on the subject. The statement makes no demand that the X has existential standing.

By irrelevancy do you mean god is irrelevant in atheism? If so you are closer than many religious people get. It cracks me up when people take it so seriously.

See Papewaio's comment.