Hi, I'm an atheist. I don't know if you'll return in 88 hours time or not. If you do, welcome back! If you want to spend some time here, you might want to work on your debate style. However, if you'd rather maintain an uncompromising appearance, unafraid to do bloody skirmish with atheists regardless of the consequences that's fine - but you might not get to stick around for too long.
Advice that is probably not wanted aside, let me try to tackle the debate at hand.
The only axiom I can perceive and truly hold to is that "we" and "this" are in fact here.
OK, I can run with that.
The question now is the following: does this axiom lend itself to the notion of an intelligent force behind it in a realm outside of it beyond our comprehension and perception
No. It neither supports nor detracts from the notion.
does it lend itself to the notion of a spontaneous birth that arrived from no-intelligence and came forth from “nothing” itself?
Once again no, not at all. The fact that 'we' exist and perceive 'this' can lead us nowhere without further axioms.
It appears as if, however, this is not the reality in which we live. This reality can most certainly in fact, lend itself to an outside intellect and force that we cannot comprehend, simply because of the only axiom we can empirically observe as fact. Why? Because of its very existence. In a world of "something" it hardly seems reasonable to assert that 'it came from "nothing"' as some sort of self evident truth.
Your argument is only true with the further axiom that reality must be describable in a fashion that Watson75 regards as 'reasonable'. I see no reason to accept that axiom.
Nevertheless, atheists do not assert that 'it came from "nothing"' as if it were a self evident truth. Atheists (in the sense you mean, as opposed to Buddhists or Animists or the like), generally stick to a model developed by science. The conclusions that the universe may either be a self-existing piece of 4d geometry or that our 4d universe is part of a greater dimensional reality whose origins cannot be speculated further upon or varieties in that vain, are not held to be 'self evident' but are actually built up on evidence.
However, none of these models state categorically that there is no intelligence behind the whole shebang somewhere or other. And atheists accept that this indeed may be the case, but why actually commit to believing that it is without any evidence that it is?
Of course, 'what about the intelligent force itself', the atheist would respond. "Where did it come from? It must have come from nothing, so your argument is negated." My response is that I know absolutely nothing about this dimension/realm, do not know the laws that govern it, or even if there are any laws. In this dimension, the universal truth of why there is an intelligent force, and how long it has existed (which is kind of a faulty statement, considering time would most certainly be skewed or non-existent in comparison to our reality), could and most likely would make perfect sense, if the human mind could even comprehend it.
Indeed, this being may be self-existing. Then again, so might this universe, or some braneworld may be self-existing. Who knows what the meta-rules are to reality? In this meta-realm as it were, it may be possible for things such as our universe to come into being, without intelligent force!
This is a much more distanced and agnostic approach, but still harbors traits of the close minded. It, in itself is a reasonable stance, however, it still completely shuts the door on the possibilities of the universe that the human mind should, and is capable of exploring.
Seems like a blanket statement, and I'm sure atheists would argue likewise about certain theists. Regardless, I am perfectly capable of imagining a wide variety of possible deities, transcendent realms, and peculiar and ironic twists in the nature of reality.
I just don't hold to a belief that any one of those flights of philosophical fancy are worthy of spending time actively believing and I wouldn't be making decisions based on them.
Strong atheism, on the other hand, the general stance of there is no proof whatsoever, therefore “God doesn’t exist,” deserves the most rebuking.
Agreed. Now if only I had ever found such an atheist, I'd shoot him and hang his head in my study - such a rare bit of game they are.
I do sometimes short-hand to 'God doesn't exist'. I mean the same thing when I, and anyone else, short-hands to 'Santa doesn't exist' or 'Faeries don't exist'. Strictly speaking of course they should be agnostic about Faeries. The should say 'Faeries may or may not exist, I just don't flipping know' - but it can get rather tiresome.
Betrand Russell:
quote:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
And If I were isolated from all civilization on an island, I would come to the same conclusion, that has nothing to do with flying potatoes but rather, “Hmm, it seems quite reasonable to suggest that some kind of higher power/intelligence had a hand in creating what I see around me. Perhaps there is some sense and purpose to all of this. Just perhaps, maybe [sarcasm].” Hardly un-reasonable.
Yes, it isn't unreasonable. As far as human reasoning goes it is very common in fact. However, with a bit more information, one might come to a second level of assertion. The knowledge that we are imperfect reasoners. It then follows that just based on pure reason (rationalism) the world may or may not have had some intelligent guiding force involved in its existence. So with rationalism and empiricism we have determined that we need more evidence before we reach any conclusions about proposed intelligence.
Rationalism on its own...well that's an argument in its own right.
First of all, I think it’s a rebellion. So often, I think you will find that atheists at one point had some religious affiliation, found out how much bologna there was in all that, and completely went the other direction, and found the ultimate antithesis, atheism.
Yes, you probably will find that a lot. It's also stunning the amount of religious people who give talks on atheism that start with 'I used to be an atheist until I realized...'. If atheism can be born of rebellion, then maybe theists are sometimes born out of selling out?
For the record, I was CofE, then New Age Spiritualist, Buddhist, Universalist, Osho Cultist, monist, pantheist, nearly Muslim, pantheist, slavic pagan, pantheist, atheist. I think just about covers them.
It’s a rebellion against religious society as a whole, not only in the present, but going as far back as the birth of human existence.
If you found yourself surrounded by lunatics who thought that the world came out of nothing, which justifies killing European people through enforced ignorance regarding healthcare...perhaps you might be considered the rebel for thinking that God loves everyone, including Europeans or some such thing.
Religious folks believers in God/higher intelligence throughout the centuries have been un-enlightened, un-informed, un-intelligent, barbarians, that had no understanding of science, and progress, and we are in an entirely different class from them!
Well, I don't know too many that'd say that. It seems to me like you've spent a lot of time around angry teenaged atheists, who tend to smugly overstate their case much like angry teenaged anythings.
Many of my favourite historical figures were religious. I like some of them for their wit, intelligence, humour or pathos - to accuse them of the things you list would be ignorance.
And more than this, and coinciding with this rebellion, is simply put, arrogance. The atheist has the answers that 95% of the world today, and 100% of the world of the past has been blind from.
Atheists are simply people that do not pretend to have knowledge in one certain thing. I'm sure in a debate setting, you will find most of your opponents attempting to answer your questions with the most recent information at their disposal. And yes, that means older information may be inaccurate or untrue meaning people 50 years ago were blind of this new information.
I think everyone would agree that in the past 150 years or so there have been a number of important revolutions as a result of science and technology that have dramatically increased our knowledge of how things work along with our ability to exploit this knowledge. From a knowledge standpoint we stand at an unprecedented height. However, we could not have got here without the work of previous generations: though we might have gotten here sooner if certain people had not interfered. It is absurd to be arrogant about that fact, but humans is humans I guess. There is no shortage of arrogance from the theistic camp, agnostic camp or deist camp.
™ Version 4.2
