Atheism is a belief (Why Atheists don't believe part 2)

If by 'God-centric' you mean centred around the Christian god, then the answer is no. As an atheist, I don't believe in any god or gods. Usually though, the question of my atheism pops up in conversations with Christians, so to them my atheism is a denial of the existence of their God.On a more general note, atheism is simply an answer to the question of whether someone believes in a god or not. But the answer is only given when the question is asked. I don't go around thinking all day that I am an atheist. My life is not organized around a system that's called atheism. The only time I consider myself an atheist is when someone asks me whether I believe in a god. That's what I meant by saying that atheism isn't a regular 'ism'. When I say I'm an atheist, I'm not saying that I believe in nothing at all. The term doesn't mean that. The word for it would be 'acredist' or something like that. I won't deny that I do believe in certain things. For instance, I believe that human beings must define their own morals, as individuals and as a society. It's just the supernatural I don't believe in. Atheism is just part of that.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

My point exactly. Only by a scientific definition redness becomes an objective reality.In his post, iano was using the color red as example of a objective reality that exists eventhough some people are blind and won`t be able to see it.
He thinks this is a good analogy for his feeling of a godly presence, that (in his opinion) is real eventhough some people can`t see/feel it.The problem is that the feeling of redness only becomes objective under the scientific definition of wavelength which can be understood even by a blind person.For this reason, for the analogy to fulfill its purpose, he would have to be able to come up with some scientific understanding of god that even a person that does not feel god the way he does would be convinced by.But that cannot be done. That renders one`s feeling of a godly presence ireducebaly subjective. And that`s how it should be

No it isn`t. look closely at your TV screen (OK, turn it on before doing that). You will see little green pixels, blue pixels, and red pixels. No yellow pixels, thogh. So how come you can see yellow pictures in your TV?. It`s "created" by a composition of red and green. In this situation there is light with the red wavelength coming into your eyes and still, you don`t see any red!! So much for an objective comcept of redness.

Do you mean we will see this objectively or subjectively FallacyCop? You can mix colours or you can put a blindfold on - both equally objective in themselves. One results in objective yellow and the other in objective black.You shouldn't push the analogy too far for when you do you realise that in the end 'objective' is only a theory which supposes that that which we experience around us is real. Its called "objective reality" curiously enough. And there is no proof of it - its a theory. Wavelength etc only describes that which is assumed in the first place. The explanation (wavelength) is a derivitive of the objective reality (red)

You seemed perfecty happy with the idea that the wavelegth of the light yields a valid objective concept for what we percieve as color up to now. Now that you realize that eventhough you think you see yellow on your TV you are not seeing yellow at all (since there are no yellow pixels on it), you decided to backpadle, and try to build a case for an objective color experience without the scientific definition of wavelength. This enterprize, in my opinion, is doomed to failure You are the one pushing the analogy. I am just showing that your analogy failed its purpose. get a better one.

If red is not objective and we must revert to wavelength could you explain to me how red could ever be made objective to anybody? You can explain the science alright: 100 units = Red and 200 units = blue. What has now become objective. 100 units? 200 units? Now lets figure out how 'unit' can be made 'objective' to anybody. Can I suggest infinte regression at this point?Edited by iano, : change blind man to - anybody

This was already pointed out as a false analogy.The blind man is irrelevant because an objective measurement can made by an instrument to show the wavelength. There is no subjective component because the instrument has no perceptions/conciousness/etc.

see edit

It can`t. That`s the point.

Sorry, i'm a little new at this posting thing so please bear with me.Anyway, the point of the argument is not that object is red, if you felt like it it could be a white poka dotted bow tie. The real point is that is NOT something that every man can see as red. The entire concept is that everyone sees the same object differently.Example, two villages on opposites sides of a mountain see a comet. The village on the right see the comet as a sign of inpending doom and destruction. The other village however, sees it as a sign that a good harvest will come. The problem being, that when both villages try and tell their story to the other, the single comet is made out to be mulitipule and conflicting omens, thefore causeing confusion and anger between the two villages.

and the rest of the post. It would seem that there is no such thing as objective at all. Not even objective reality. Which whilst possibly being the case kind of short circuits the discussion.A 'unit of wavelength' is only an objective thing to those who can see it. A person without the intellectual capacity to 'see' it never will either. Does that make it non-objective?

It short circuits ANY discussion. It's one of your favourite tactics! ;-)One might as well assume that we discuss "reality" as it presents itself to us. Any other speculation is ultimately pointless. No.Edited by RickJB, : Typos.

It is useful to illustrate from time to time that the sword which a person yields can slit their own throat as easily as it can mine. One might assume the higher ground but in debate one should be able to show how one arrived there. Debate doesn't revolve around simply supposing your assumption is sufficient. What can often happen is that there is agreement on the assumption and folk can strike forth from there. If no agreement then I don't apologise for pointing out that fact.A common description of objectivity (scientfic objectivity is but one attempt to work with objective reality) involves numerous observers seeing the same thing. My original point was that the observer (any observer of any objective thing in whatever way objectivity is being defined) must be able to 'see' the object.Not all are in a position to be observers. But that doesn't mean the object is not objective.

If the original argument was that because objective observation cannot reveal the true nature of reality that therefore belief in God in the absence of objective evidence is as valid as disbelief in God because of the absence of objective evidence, then it should be noted that this is simply arguing that all beliefs are equally valid. This leads inevitably to the conclusion that not only is theism as valid as atheism, but that Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and so forth are all as equally valid as Christianity.There are other inevitable conclusions, of course. For example, it also leads to the conclusion that the beliefs of perpetual motion machine advocates and other mad hatters are as valid as those who accept the established laws of physics. Even more ridiculously, it leads to the conclusion that the beliefs of someone who thinks he can fly off a ten story building are as valid as those who believe otherwise, since the former, if he acts on his beliefs, will soon be dead.The bottom line is that whether or not reality is real, all evidence tells us that the evidence from the real world can only be ignored at one's peril. Even if reality is an illusion, the illusion that you die when you jump off a ten story building is a very convincing one.--Percy

A rock doesn`t have the intellectual capacity to understand any of us. Should we stop reasoning all together or should we just stop talking to rocks? This is just a red hearing. The point is that the wavelegth of the light can be objectively defined, but the feeling of redness cannot. That makes the second concept a subjective one. Someone`s lack of intellectual capacity to comprehend the wavelegth concept is completely beside the point.