Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 16 of 577 (553329)
04-02-2010 7:11 PM


I often wonder if people of Abrahamic faith define atheists as anyone who doesn't believe in their particular god.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 17 of 577 (553332)
04-02-2010 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


Observing the abstract?
I would like to propose a topic centering on the underlying philosophy of atheism, primarily, what is an atheists fundamental starting point, and is this starting point valid?
Plenty of people have gone the 'strictly there is no underlying philosophy' route. I agree with them.
So let me try and answer your question from different angles.
Have you ever asked yourself why it might be a good idea to disbelieve someone that tells you they own the Brooklyn Bridge and want to sell it for $5k scrap value?
It's because if you genuinely believed them, you'd be mad not to give them your money.
But why is that a problem? It's a problem because the chances are, you've just lost $5k. Why? Because the chances are the person doesn't own Brooklyn Bridge.
If we had a sci-fi device that proved beyond any doubt that the person was NOT deliberately stating a falsehood - would you give him the money? You'd still be foolish: He could be a madman, deluded into thinking he owns the bridge, but doesn't. Or maybe for some reason not related to mental health, he believed he owned the bridge. Maybe he is hypnotized, or drugged, or maybe he was raised by eccentrics who used the fact that kids believe their parents readily to convince their child of a falsehood. Maybe those parents were raised by eccentric people that did likewise.
When it comes to a claim, there are more ways the claim could be false than true so we need someway of ascertaining the truth to the statement. We need an epistemological model that can be consistently applied to discriminate between true claims and false ones.
Atheism is one consequence among many of adopting certain epistemological models and applying them as consistently as possible. So generally speaking, when a person claims 'God exists', an atheist does not find the support for that statement to be sufficient to be accepted. Similarly, they find support lacking for unicorns, goblins, domovoi, djinn, ancestor spirits, telepathy, psychic healing, transcendent beings of love that are the ground of all being...
The models generally applied include the demand for independent lines of evidence that cohere upon the truth regarding the claim.
To be more specific, does the starting point for atheism account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities
No.
Atheism is not the starting point, it is a conclusion.
Logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, morality -- they are all arrived it in different ways. Epistemology is usually an important starting point, just because without knowing how you can say if you know something, it's difficult to establish if you know a logical proposition is true. And epistemology will generally guide opinions on metaphysics, ontology and ultimately morality.
This is an ideal path - but most people are born as children and have metaphysics and ontology spoon fed to us and this early learning tends to 'colour' the exploration of epistemology. Instead of asking 'How do I know that what I think I know is true?', an explorer might be tempted to ask 'How do I know that God exists?' and try to develop an epistemology that answers that question rather than the more primal question.
Further, how could these entities arise in a universe that is not governed by God?
More fundamentally, how have you arrived at the conclusion that God must necessarily govern the universe in order for these things to arise?
So, the basic question is: from where did abstract entities arise, and why do you believe in these entities?
'From' and 'where' are words that make a lot of assumptions. Second you insist that they are 'abstract entities'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'abstract entity'. I believe morals exist, because I have observed them, and so have others. There are numerous independent lines of evidence that demonstrates that morals exist.
As for the laws of logic? They seem to exist. I observe that the statement that an entity can not simultaneously be and not be is consistent with what I have observed about reality, and what others have observed. Bizarre quantum interpretations aside
So I believe these things exist, because I observe them to be consistent with each other, with my experiences, with reported experiences of others, they form a coherent picture and assuming them to exist has great pragmatic value.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 577 (553338)
04-02-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


I would like to propose a topic centering on the underlying philosophy of atheism, primarily, what is an atheists fundamental starting point ...
Well, there isn't necessarily a single philosophical starting point that leads to atheism. So I can only speak for myself.
In my case, it's observation. Does it look like we live in a universe with a God? No, it doesn't. Therefore, I am obliged to provisionally conclude that there is no God, subject to further observation.
... and is this starting point valid?
Well, obviously I think it's valid. You would have to decide that for yourself. But I would point out that if observation isn't a valid way of gaining knowledge, then there is very little that we can say about anything. For example, I think that grass is green because it looks green. If you and I were to reject observation, then on what basis would we say that it wasn't pink? Indeed, on what basis would we say that grass exists at all?
To be more specific, does the starting point for atheism account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities. Further, how could these entities arise in a universe that is not governed by God?
This is a bit like asking a disbeliever in Cupid how he accounts for the abstract entity of romantic love without an invisible baby with wings shooting invisible magic arrows into people.
And lastly, this discussion will not be fought from a neutral standpoint, for two primary reasons.
1. The Bible commands us not to.
"Us"? Speak for yourself. Would you debate with a Muslim according to rules that he took from the Koran, because he says that the Koran commands "us" to follow his rules?
Neutrality is ultimately impossible.
I will not go in to detail to explain why neutrality is impossible, but statement #2 rests on the fact that atheists (who claim to be neutral) are in no way neutral, and if they were neutral, they could not believe anything.
I am not interested in discussing claims that you can't even be bothered to support. Nor, apparently, are you. If you're too apathetic to support your statement, or even to explain its meaning, then I regard it as worthless.
So, the basic question is: from where did abstract entities arise, and why do you believe in these entities?
Abstract entities are ... abstract entities. They "arise" because we want to apply nominal clauses to things which aren't actually things in the sense that a rock or a tree or a fish are things.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 577 (553345)
04-02-2010 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


False Dichotomy?
Hi sac51495, and welcome to the fray. I hope you are prepared for an onslaught of replies from a wide variety of people.
I would like to propose a topic centering on the underlying philosophy of atheism, ...
... And lastly, this discussion will not be fought from a neutral standpoint, for two primary reasons.
1. The Bible commands us not to.
I am curious to understand why you seem to imply, or take for granted, that these are the only choices available to a philosophical approach to reality.
Perhaps we should ask what makes christianity a valid philosophy rather than just a(nother) religion?
What philosophical basis does one begin with?
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4720 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 20 of 577 (553374)
04-02-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by DC85
04-02-2010 5:43 PM


I have little choice but to point toward science for explanations
In this statement, you point toward science to provide support for your belief (atheism). This statement shows what your underlying belief is; that natural law or science is your supreme authority, and that natural law is what you point toward as your source of evidence. Therefore, your underlying belief is that God is not the supreme authority, but natural law is. So this begs the question; why is natural law your supreme authority? You may say that once you point towards natural law, you have left the realm of philosophy; but you haven't. I believe in God as my supreme authority, and from Him I derive all my beliefs. You point to natural law (or science) as your ultimate authority.
You also say that you are "not theist". Theist comes from the greek word theos, which simply means "God" or "a god". The a at the beginning of this word denotes the opposite of the word following. Simply put, atheist means "no God". Further, to say that you are simply "not theist" does not describe what you believe. If I say "I am not French" this does not give us much information about what I really am.
As to your statements about morals and ethics, you simply explained what the morals are in your universe, but you do not explain how, in a materialist universe, abstract (meaning *non-material) entities can arise. And if, as you said, the morals are subjective, how can the law justly punish someone who has committed a moral wrong if that particular person believes that the crime they committed was actually a good thing under their system of morals.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DC85, posted 04-02-2010 5:43 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2010 10:59 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2010 11:01 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 24 by DC85, posted 04-02-2010 11:09 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4720 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 21 of 577 (553375)
04-02-2010 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Straggler
04-02-2010 5:48 PM


Re: Evolution of Brains?
In reply to straggler,
We need to be able to think logically to understand that world around us in even the most basic sense
What laws of logic were used to come to the conclusion that we must use laws of logic in our world? You say that since we see that everything around us is logical, that we must then think logically. So this is circular reasoning to say that we use the laws of logic to prove that we must use the laws of logic.
And yes, what you are talking about is precisely what I meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 04-02-2010 5:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by DC85, posted 04-02-2010 11:21 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 04-03-2010 5:08 AM sac51495 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 22 of 577 (553376)
04-02-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by sac51495
04-02-2010 10:45 PM


It reverts back to the evidence
So this begs the question; why is natural law your supreme authority? You may say that once you point towards natural law, you have left the realm of philosophy; but you haven't. I believe in God as my supreme authority, and from Him I derive all my beliefs. You point to natural law (or science) as your ultimate authority.
There is evidence for one, but not for the other.
All the world's religions rely on belief, dogma, scripture, divine revelation, and other non-empirical and non-verifiable forms of "evidence."
Science relies on empirical evidence, that is, things that can be measured, quantified, or directly inferred in some way.
And if, as you said, the morals are subjective, how can the law justly punish someone who has committed a moral wrong if that particular person believes that the crime they committed was actually a good thing under their system of morals.
Morals may be subjective, but laws are not. If you behead an "errant" daughter in this country you violate a law no matter what your personal delusions may be.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 10:45 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 1:09 AM Coyote has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 577 (553377)
04-02-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by sac51495
04-02-2010 10:45 PM


You also say that you are "not theist". Theist comes from the greek word theos, which simply means "God" or "a god". The a at the beginning of this word denotes the opposite of the word following. Simply put, atheist means "no God". Further, to say that you are simply "not theist" does not describe what you believe. If I say "I am not French" this does not give us much information about what I really am.
This is the closest I have ever seen any theist come towards understanding what "atheist" means.
Curiously enough, the rest of your posts strongly suggest that you don't know what "atheist" means, and indeed that you suffer from contemptible delusions about what "atheist" means. But this one paragraph suggests that you have, for just one moment, really understood what "atheist" means.
Hold on to that moment of insight. Yes, it's exactly like saying that one is not French, without laying claim to any other particular nationality. You've got it. Hooray!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 10:45 PM sac51495 has not replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 24 of 577 (553378)
04-02-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by sac51495
04-02-2010 10:45 PM


In this statement, you point toward science to provide support for your belief (atheism)
I do not have this belief you speak of.
that natural law or science is your supreme authority,
I wasn't aware there was such an authority.
your underlying belief is that God is not the supreme authority,
No I simply do not believe in this God
I believe in God as my supreme authority,
Why do you believe this? A "feeling" will not mean anything to me so I do hope you can explain it without that description.
If I say "I am not French" this does not give us much information about what I really am.
That was the point the word atheist only tells you I don't believe in a god or gods it tells you nothing else about me or any other atheist.
As to your statements about morals and ethics, you simply explained what the morals are in your universe, but you do not explain how, in a materialist universe, abstract (meaning *non-material) entities can arise
In the mind like any other idea or collectively as a species or a society.
the morals are subjective, how can the law justly punish someone who has committed a moral wrong if that particular person believes that the crime they committed was actually a good thing under their system of morals.
Laws serve the society's best interest as a whole they aren't based on morals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 10:45 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4720 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 25 of 577 (553379)
04-02-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
04-02-2010 5:53 PM


Because we've made them, therefore they exist in the sense that ideas exist. Did you mean "believe" or "agree"?
But the most important point is that there isn't an "underlying philosophy of atheism" itself. Different atheists may have very different philosophies, or no philosophy at all.
Thank you for making this distinction, as some atheists will talk about what they believe, but you start from the point of "agreeing".
I notice that you live in the U.K., and I will then say it is safe to assume that you are, perhaps, a relatively law-abiding citizen of the U.K. From where does the U.K. get the authority to lay out a set of morals as the law of the land, if there are, perhaps, some people in the U.K. who disagree with this set of morals? How can you say that if you punish a person who believes that murder is a good thing, that you are establishing justice, when in reality you are punishing this person for what is in their opinion a good thing? You may reply that the majority of the people in England believe in the particular set of morals which say that murder is wrong. This makes sense at first, but then I will ask further, where does the moral come from that says one set of morals can rule over another set of morals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 04-02-2010 5:53 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-03-2010 2:40 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 82 by Blue Jay, posted 04-03-2010 8:41 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2010 11:46 AM sac51495 has not replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 26 of 577 (553380)
04-02-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by sac51495
04-02-2010 10:58 PM


Re: Evolution of Brains?
What laws of logic were used to come to the conclusion that we must use laws of logic in our world? You say that since we see that everything around us is logical, that we must then think logically. So this is circular reasoning to say that we use the laws of logic to prove that we must use the laws of logic.
And yes, what you are talking about is precisely what I meant.
Science is based on empirical evidence so logic based in science is based on empirical evidence.
Correct me If I'm wrong but
"faith" is based on feelings. How do you draw your entire belief and moral structure from a "feeling"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 10:58 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4720 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 27 of 577 (553382)
04-02-2010 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
04-02-2010 6:05 PM


The laws of logic are easily explained without invoking a God. They are simply semantic rules, formalisations of basic concepts embedded in language, that enhance our ability to reason. By applying these stricter rules to our statements we can tease out the details implicit in them.
I should have made a clarification when asking for an explanation for the laws of logic. I should point out that the laws of logic should not be invoked in support of the laws of logic. Also, how did we come to the conclusion that language is logical? We must have reasoned in order to do this, which, I would hold, is circular reasoning. If you derive the laws of logic from language, then where did language come from?
Explaining why we would possibly need a God for logic to apply is a rather more difficult task. So, perhaps sac54195 can explain why he believes that is true and how his worldview accounts for logic.
Let me make some futile attempt to explain something about the character of God. I would first point out that in my belief, I am an utterly depraved human being, and that my trying to help you understand God is really not the best way of doing things. The best way for you to understand God is to read the Bible (and I would highly suggest that you do so) and then you can be to some degree enlightened.
Now I will make my futile attempt. God is an eternal being "in whom all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). All things are derived from God (including the laws of logic) because it is the very character of God. Once again, realize this is my futile attempt at explaining a God that is infinitely more holy than me, so my attempted explanations do not do Him justice. Continuing, because ALL things consist in God (this also includes natural law) we cannot use natural law to describe God, just like we cannot determine exactly what a potter is like based on one clay vessel he made.
So I believe that we must have a god to account for the laws of logic, because a god is the only thing that can be invoked to make sense of these things. We cannot use the laws of logic to describe where they came from. We must then resort to God, because he "has made all things".
This explanation may not satisfy you, but I would implore you to read the the very words of God Himself if you would like to understand better.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2010 6:05 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by DC85, posted 04-02-2010 11:54 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-03-2010 2:44 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2010 3:50 AM sac51495 has replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 28 of 577 (553383)
04-02-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by sac51495
04-02-2010 11:39 PM


how did we come to the conclusion that language is logical? We must have reasoned in order to do this, which, I would hold, is circular reasoning. If you derive the laws of logic from language, then where did language come from?
We didn't it's both an evolved trait and a social evolving trait. Humans are a social species language evolved as the species evolved and got more complex as societies and more complex social structures came into being.
. The best way for you to understand God is to read the Bible (and I would highly suggest that you do so) and then you can be to some degree enlightened.
Why do you assume me as an atheist has never read the Bible?
So I believe that we must have a god to account for the laws of logic, because a god is the only thing that can be invoked to make sense of these things.
I disagree. I think Evolution , social interaction , and societies advancing explain it well.
We must then resort to God, because he "has made all things".This explanation may not satisfy you, but I would implore to read the the very words of God Himself if you would like to understand better.
I know the Bible very well.... I don't believe a word of it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 11:39 PM sac51495 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 29 of 577 (553384)
04-03-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


The others are giving you good answers, so I hope that I will be able to offer a slightly different perspective.
... account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities.
OK, that's a bit weird. "abstract entities"? Is that from that odd pagan idea -- Plato was it? -- that for anything to exist, such as a chair or the color green, there must exist a pure abstract thing which is that thing or quality. Is that what you're talking about here?
Well, I must warn you: I'm an engineer. Well, software engineer; the schooling isn't as rigorous, but it's the same community and we work on the same projects. Engineers don't have much patience for iffy stuff like philosophy. Our only use for philosophy is to decide upon and describe our approach to making our design work -- as such, our use of the term is akin to "theory of operation" and is different from yours, I'm quite sure.
The thing is that the engineer's approach is akin to that of many atheists, as I personally understand it. We're realists and pragmatists and that's the basic atheist approach. What is the world really like? What works? No underlying philosophy leads to atheism, but rather it's usually the failure of the underlying theistic philosophy/religion that that person was already involved in.
The thing is that while it can be said that everybody is born an atheist, we do still fairly quickly become socialized in our families and immediate communities. Even with an atheist population of 10%, that would still mean that most children will become indoctrinated in a theistic religion -- ironically, a common trend in atheist families is to avoid indoctrinating their own children in atheism; I didn't discover until entering adulthood that my own father had been an unbeliever since before he had turned 21. Therefore, the atheist's fundamental starting point is very often religion. Is that starting point valid? No, obviously not, since it's often the person's discovery that his religious views are not valid which leads to atheism.
I say "often", because every atheist's story is different, even though there are some common themes. You might want to visit some ex-Christian sites to familiarize yourself. Many are the result of having been lied to or betrayed -- in this category, I would include the effects on a creationist of learning the truth about evolution. In Dan Barker's case, his Christian experience (born and raised in a fundamentalist family, personally called to the ministry by God, etc) was wonderful, but then he started to think. As he described it in his book (godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists -- as of Ch 3, it's a good read) (pg 37):
quote:
I remember the way I was thinking then: every Christian has a particular hierarchy the doctrines and practices, and most Christians arrange their hierarchy in roughly the same manner. The existence of God is at the top, the deity of Jesus just below that, and so on down to the bottom of the list, where you find issues like whether women should wear jewelry or make-up in church. What distinguishes many brands of Christianity is where they'd draw their line between what is essential and what is not. Extreme fundamentalists draw the line way down at the bottom of the list, making all doctrines about that equally necessary. Moderates draw the line somewhere up in the middle of the list. Liberals draw the line way up at the top, not caring of the bible as is inherent or if Jesus existed historically, but holding onto the existence of God, whether he or she is defined, maintaining the general usefulness of religion, and valuing rituals to give structure or meaning to life.
As I traveled across the spectrum, I kept drawing my line higher and higher.
That is how Dan Barker, co-president of the Foundation for Freedom From Religion, transistioned over a few years from fundamentalist preacher to atheist. Note that at no time was he aiming for atheism nor was he influenced by atheists. Indeed, when I first heard him speak it was through the 1980's 15-minute weekly radio program of Atheists United of Los Angeles (yeah, right, atheist programming flooding the airwaves to the complete exclusion of Christian programming); he had gone through his deconversion a few years before in Southern California. In the opening of his speech to Atheists United, he yelled: "Where were you when I needed you?" As he went through that long process, as far as he ever knew he was the only atheist in existence.
In my own case, as a young teenager in a mainstream church, I decided I needed to learn what I was supposed to believe, so, proceeding with nave literalism, I started to read the Bible from the beginning. It didn't take long for me to realize that I just couldn't believe what I was reading, so the only thing I could do was to leave Christianity. It was a full half-decade before I ever heard of any atheist authors. So a "philosophy of atheism" had nothing to do with it, nor with my understanding of morality, which enabled me to successfully navigate sexual moral dilemmas, the very promise of which lead Christian teens to fake becoming atheists in order to give free reign to their bubbling hormones (one of the big problems with morality based solely on belief in God).
Though my favorite deconversion story is of the Baptist boy who went to college and started dating a Catholic girl. He really liked her and felt so sorry for her that she was going to go to Hell for not being a "true Christian". Then one day she started crying uncontrollable; she really liked him and felt so sorry for him that he was going to go to Hell for being a heretic (ie, non-Catholic). Shocked awake, he went to the library and asked for the most complete history of Christianity they had. Despite repeated attempts by the librarian to spare him ("You really don't want to read this."), he checked it out and read the massive tome in a month, at the end of which he was convinced that there really is a God, then He sure as Hell wasn't Christian.
Basically, all that atheists can agree on is that they don't believe in any of the gods; anything else is pretty much up to each individual atheist and will vary pretty much with each individual atheist. For example, my position is primarily agnostic, in that it is humanly impossible to know anything about the supernatural, even whether it exists. From there, we can either assume theism or atheism. My opinion is that the atheistic assumption is the more honest one, because the theist must then make up an awful lot of extra stuff about his particular god, none of which could ever be verified (remember realism and pragmatics?). Even if it were to turn out that a supernatural entity existed that could possibly be interpreted as "God", it would still be the case that the Christian God is made up by Man. Just note that while many atheists would deny the existence of the supernatural, for me it's
highly doubtful but not impossible; rather I concentrate a bit more on how humans could possibly relate to it or know anything at all about it. You know, the realistic and pragmatic stuff.
Please know, if you have not already realized it, that just about every atheist is different, that there is no one single "underlying philosophy of atheism". Know also, if you base your "knowledge" of atheists on what the Bible says, that the Bible is wrong about that (an ex-Christian on one site once quoted those verses and I recognized some really stupid things that fundamentalists have said to me over the years). If you want to know what atheists think and believe, then ask them and listen. Of course, given Dan Barker's story, you also now know the dangers that thinking and learning can pose.
To be more specific, does the starting point for atheism account for all the abstract entities that we know are present, such as the laws of logic, morals, ethics, and other such entities. Further, how could these entities arise in a universe that is not governed by God?
. . .
So, the basic question is: from where did abstract entities arise, and why do you believe in these entities?
To begin with, Waltz-Tango-Foxtrot-Oversway? (WTF, over)
Morality -- we are a social species. All social species have social behavior -- just why do you think that we can get along so well with another very social species, dog? Without morality, society could not exist. We have formed societies which continue to exist. Those societies include morality. Made by human societies without any contribution from any of the gods. Duh?
Ethics -- again, morality, though more codified. We are dealing with other people, dealing in trust. I'd been of the opinion that the fundamental basis of morality is trust, which means that betrayal of a trust is one of the worst social transgressions there that can be. Ethics is a codified way of maintaining that trust. Codified by humans without any help from any of the gods. Again, duh?
Logic -- uh, sorry, but Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Oscar? Let's grab this bull by the tail and face the situation. Why stop with logic? What about geometry? Or algebra? Or windmills? Or gas turbines? Or klystrons? Or cell phones? Uh, hello? Those are all man-made, each and every one. Whatever gave you the idea that your god had anything to do with any of them? Seriously! Chapter and verse! Now, how could any of them have arisen? Guess what, because they work! Realism and pragmatism! Remember?
And, "believe in these entities"? As far as I can tell, those "entities" are just silly Platonian figments of the imagination. However, logic, morality, ethics, etc. Of course I recognize those and believe that they exist. For the same reason that I believe that my car and my computer exist. And, most unfortunately, also my ex. Simply because they do actually exist. Realism. Remember?
, fundamentalists (having been one for decades)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 12:25 AM dwise1 has replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4720 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 30 of 577 (553385)
04-03-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rahvin
04-02-2010 6:10 PM


In reply to Rahvin,
Since I would like to try to reply to most of the people's comments on this post, I will not reply to every point you made, as some of them are common to other posts.
Ethics and morality are human constructs
You claim you have no underlying assumptions. Perhaps different atheists have different specific beliefs, but YOU make the assumption that ethics and morality are human constructs. If this isn't an underlying assumption, then I don't know what is. My underlying assumption is that morals and ethics etc. are derived from God and God alone. To address why different civilizations have different "taboos", I need go no further than the Word of God. "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. " (Romans 1:21-23). We live in a world corrupted by sin, and the cannibals you speak of are the people spoke of in the aforementioned scripture passage.
So I will ask: If a cannibal (from say, Africa) and an American meet out in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, where they are no longer connected to their respective societies, would it be right for the cannibal to cannibalize the American, or would it be wrong?
There is no basic underlying assumption to atheism, any more than there is a basic underlying assumption to simply not believing in Santa Claus.
As I have already shown, you do have underlying assumptions. If someone truly believes in Santa Claus, you can perhaps say that their underlying belief is that there is the possibility of the existence of flying reindeer, and other such things exclusive to Santa Claus (realize, please, that this is merely an example).
I will conclude by saying that you either believe that there IS a god, or you believe that there is NO god. There are absolutely no other possibilites. You may believe in a different god than your neighbor, but you still believe in a god. Likewise, atheists may come to different conclusions based on what their underlying assumptions may be (whatever you say those are). But the theists are still theists, and the atheists are still atheists. There are only two sides to this argument, either positive or negative. To say you are neutral is to say that you believe in both theism and atheism, or neither. Certainly you cannot say you believe in a god and that you don't believe in a god. Also, you certainly could not say that you do not believe in atheism, since that is precisely what you believe in. Once again, I am a theist, you are not. Therefore, you are, by definition, an atheist, which is the negative side to the theist/atheist debate.
And lastly, I do have an underlying assumption for my "disbelief" in thor. That assumption is that God is the one and only living and true God, and this precludes the possibility of thor.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 04-02-2010 6:10 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 04-03-2010 1:28 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-03-2010 2:50 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 354 by Perdition, posted 06-11-2010 5:04 PM sac51495 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024