Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism isn't a belief?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 241 of 329 (237221)
08-26-2005 8:19 AM


Summary on topic
Would it be an idea to get back on topic? "Athiesm isn't a belief".
I say it is - and an irrational one at that. To summarise:
"No objective evidence for God" is not a rational statement as to the non-existance of God. It makes the statement that 'objective' an absolute as a way of knowing things when there is no absolute foundation for the view.
"No belief" is not an athiest position. An athiest holds to something other than God - ie: 'everything is natural'. But he has no way of knowing this. He can only hold that view by belief.
Thus unfounded belief in nature on the one hand and no complete way of commenting on the non-existance of God on the other.
Atheism is thus irrational - as it only deals with a portion of what is possible not all that is possible. It is a stance based on belief in something without evidence for the something thus shares the attributes of a religion.
(What theism is, rational or otherwise is not the issue, just what athiesm is)

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 08-26-2005 9:47 AM iano has replied
 Message 249 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-26-2005 10:05 AM iano has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 242 of 329 (237224)
08-26-2005 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by purpledawn
08-25-2005 8:31 PM


Re: Knowing
Sometimes I think we are working with a different set of word meanings. Makes it hard to discuss, don't you think?
You are dead right. It always confounds me when a christian friend says "I know Jesus loves me." then another friend (Muslim this time) says "I know Allah loves me." Then the two of them spend the next hour arguing over who is right and who is wrong.
I used to work quite closely with a group of people of both persuasions and it would get quite interesting at times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by purpledawn, posted 08-25-2005 8:31 PM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 243 of 329 (237225)
08-26-2005 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by iano
08-26-2005 5:34 AM


Re: Reason and proof
quote:
This, given that it is not reasonable to think that objective evidence, in it's empirical, scientific sense, will be available (God would be supernatural). I have said that in requiring such evidence, one is looking for the evidence in the wrong place. "No evidence" is thus rewritten "I am not looking for the evidence where it may be found" Thus the rationale behind athiesm is shown not to be rational
You have not shown that the rationale behind atheism (hopefully you will learn how to spell it correctly at some point) is not rational.
It is not up to the atheist to find your invisible God or the supernatural realm that you claim exists. It is up to you to provide the information; and since you haven't, you have shown me that you also don't know where God or the supernatural can be found outside of your mind or literature.
Just because I don't believe what you say about the existence of a god and the supernatural, doesn't mean I have an unfounded trust in something else. It just means that you have not made your case for their existence by providing facts or information for me to believe or trust to be real.
quote:
purpledawn writes:
In my Christian's mind he believes he is saved, he is a Christian, he is seeking a closer union with God, but the journey took him away from belief.
In his mind. Is that not believism? What about knowing? Where does that come in? If one knew then one cannot unknow. Google 'know the living God' for scriptural backup that this is not ony possible but frequent.
Where else does belief take place except in the mind? In the sense that know means to be aware of; have perceived or learned, yes, my Christian knew he was a Christian etc.
You have yet to provide the scripture that supports your statement that one cannot "unknow" as you put it. It is your responsibility to provide the support, not mine to find it.
quote:
In commenting on the purpose of the law being to make people realise that they can't keep the law, I am referring to a theme which is all over the bible. I would find it strange, and somewhat wasteful of time to have to provide chapter and verse given that it is as obvious as the day is long that this is the case:
Providing book, chapter, and verse, is not a waste of time but a common courtesy. It shows me that you are actually looking at the book and not quoting from memory or tradition, which I think some of yours are since you tend to mix your lessons.
I find it amusing that the verses you provided do not show that the Jewish laws were given to make man realize that they are unable to keep the laws. IMO, my explanation made more sense than yours.
The Jewish laws had the same purpose as any other laws developed by communities or nations. The same purpose as our laws today.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 5:34 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 10:14 AM purpledawn has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 244 of 329 (237226)
08-26-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by iano
08-26-2005 5:48 AM


Re: STOP PRESS: Iano is a filthy, manky, greasy sinner - but he ain't alone!!
Except to say there is no absolute right and wrong is an absolute statement - which puts you in a Catch-22 situation - because man is not in a positon to make absolute statements.
Just wanted to point out that you just made one though.
By your own reasoning you cannot say that man is absolutely unable to make absolute statements. It is self contradictory to say so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 5:48 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 10:17 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 245 of 329 (237229)
08-26-2005 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by iano
08-26-2005 5:59 AM


Re: Fire in the hole...
Look at these two statements PY. It is "plain stupid to have no belief" and an athiest "has no belief" You might be on for a bit of a hiding there from some. Me, I don't for a second think that athiests are stupid thus according to your statement an athiest has belief. Not in God but in Nature-is-everything.
Come on Ian. You know full well that I didn't mean that atheists are stupid. It is just stupid to say that they have NObeliefs (ie. a-everything). I firmly believe that the PC that I am using to write this message is real and is actually here. The proof of that is that answers to my messages just keep coming back to me along a little cable. That would be supernatural to somebody from a couple hundred years back. You certainly couldn't accuse me of being an a-PCist so as the set "everything" undoubtedly includes PCs, your premise of me being an a-everythingist is thouroughly falsified.
Beside that, A-theism only addresses the lack of Theism so why bring "everything" into it at all?
As to your other point, many would argue that nature IS God so in that sense nature would be everything.
How about we get back to some useful discussions instead of degrading down to this nit-picking stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 5:59 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 10:32 AM PurpleYouko has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 246 of 329 (237232)
08-26-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by iano
08-26-2005 6:12 AM


Re: Knowing
You wouldn't know it, you would believe it. If you knew it then it would be the case.
So you agree then that it is only possible to "know" something if it is literally true.
Do you also agree that if something like the statement that "God exists" is absolutely true for one individual then it must be absolutely true for all?
If you do agree then your definition of "know" must match my own.
I then contend that it is impossible to "know" something as this means that we are absolutely aware of an absolute truth. Further, it is not uncommon for several people to each claim to "know" a truth with absolute conviction but when they compare notes, their "truths" are contradictory, proving that they didn't actually "know" what they thought they did. At least all but one of them didn't. The question is Which one? (if any)
We back to Ojectivity Rules (in the provable to everyone sense) again. What reason is there for thinking that this is the way it is. It may be a well established theory but a theory is not truth. That some folk have decided that a well-established theory can be for all intents and purposes considered true is only a philosophical position. It is not a true position
Maybe I am not using the word "Objectivity" correctly. Here is what it means to me so let's see if you agree.
If something is objectively true or provable then it is true for all applicable instances. For example it is objectively true that if you heat Sodium in a flame it will always emit photons at specific wavelengths. This can be demonstrated at any place and time with the correct instrumentation.
If something is subjectively true then it is true for the individual who sees it but not necessarily true for others. An example of this would be that some might see the afore mentioned photons as yellow while others might see them as orange. If you have some kind of weird color blindness you might swear they are pink.
Color vision is subjective as are personal experiences. You can't prove a color. You can't prove that you "know" god.
There is nothing theoretical about this. It can be demonstrated quite easily by the fact that you cannot (at present) show me any proof of god but I can very easily show you the proof of the wavelength of the Sodium spectrum if you come into my lab for a while.
In other words PY you say that the only way to know is through objectivity. Reason (which doesn't rely on circular reasoning)?
Actually I say there is no way at all to "know". Objectivity just means it is the same for all, not that it is 100% true. There is always that tiny sliver of a chance that the entire universe doesn't exist at all except in my own imagination.
Ooh! A matrix moment!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 6:12 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 1:19 PM PurpleYouko has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 247 of 329 (237234)
08-26-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by ramoss
08-26-2005 7:28 AM


Ramoss writes:
Well, since there doesn't seem to be an absolute right or wrong, then perhaps nothing defines it? YOu have not demonstrated that there is an absolute right/wrong.
Demonstrate? Look at everybody in the world.
A 10 year old can be convicted of a crime he has never been told about by his parents (or anyone else) based on the fact that he is considered to be in possession of a knowledge of natural law - that is, he is presumed to have a conscience equal to that of everyone else (unless there are obvious grounds for diminished responsibility)
There is no way to demonstrate that his conscience is equal to everyone elses but it is assumed that it is. Guilty until proven otherwise in this respect. Factors such as upbringing may be taken into consideration but wrong he considered to have done. He cannot claim ignorance due to parenting because ignorance of a law is not considered a defence. You are presumed to be able to have known about it regardless of upbringing.
Neither could we use Evolution as a defence "M'lud. My clients mutational makeup has all the evidence (circumstantially) of being one which is slightly other than average - as phenomenon which has been proven by Evolution Theory. This theory poses that advancement will occur due to this very same mutational advantage allied with a process know as survival of the fittest. M'lud, he killed the driver of that vehicle in order to claim the vehicle from it's 'owner' purely on the basis of a mutational makeup outside his control. He pleads innocence based on totally diminished responsiblity and requests that the charge of murder be dropped"
Where did conscience come from? From whence this natural law? It is absolutely and undeniably present. Evolution may have a theory for it but this theory won't stand up in a court dealing with right and wrong. A non absolute theory cannot explain something which is considered by the vast majority (even if they haven't actively consider it as such) as being absolute. Calling it natural law doesn't change things one iota.
That's just a man-made title not an explaination.

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by ramoss, posted 08-26-2005 7:28 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-26-2005 11:30 AM iano has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 248 of 329 (237239)
08-26-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by iano
08-26-2005 8:19 AM


Re: Summary on topic
quote:
"No objective evidence for God" is not a rational statement as to the non-existance of God. It makes the statement that 'objective' an absolute as a way of knowing things when there is no absolute foundation for the view.
Which has nothing to do with whether atheism is a religion or not.
quote:
"No belief" is not an athiest position. An athiest holds to something other than God - ie: 'everything is natural'. But he has no way of knowing this. He can only hold that view by belief.
You refuse to follow through with the Christian I presented that went from belief to nonbelief. He did not pick up another belief, he found that the information presented concerning the Christian God was not true. Therefore he no longer had confidence in the statements or promises of Christianity or their God, which means he no longer believed.
The word belief has many meanings:
1. the state of believing; conviction
2. faith, esp. religious faith
3. trust or confidence (I have belief in his abilities)
4. anything believed or accepted as tru; esp. a creed, tenet, etc.
5. an opinion; expectation
Yes an atheism does not have beliefs, convictions. An atheist does have beliefs, convictions.
Atheism is not a faith, religious or otherwise.
Atheism cannot trust, but an atheist can trust or have confidence in many things.
Atheism cannot believe in the tenets of a group, but an atheist can believe that the principles of a group are true.
Atheism cannot have an opinion, but an atheist can.
So the statement that Atheism is not a belief, deals with meaning #2. You have not shown that Ahteism is a religion. It is not.
Religion: 1. belief in a superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe and expression of this belief in conduct and ritual
2. any specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics
3. the state or way of life of a person in a monastic order
4. any object that is seriously or zealously pursued.
IMO, you are trying to say that since the atheist believes that the natural world is all that exists that atheism is a religion, but technically that person is a naturalist or the belief is naturalism (the belief that the natural world is all that exists).
Naturalism is a belief in nature. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Therefore, atheism is not a belief. It does not share the attributes of religion.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 8:19 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 2:02 PM purpledawn has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 249 of 329 (237243)
08-26-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by iano
08-26-2005 8:19 AM


Re: Summary on topic
"No objective evidence for God" is not a rational statement as to the non-existance of God. It makes the statement that 'objective' an absolute as a way of knowing things when there is no absolute foundation for the view.
sigh.
I thought we had reached an understanding on this point when we hashed out the definition of Scientific Atheism. Why are you backtracking?
Are you still insisting that Atheism must include a belief in the non-existence of God?
I already agreed with you that asserting the non-existence of God is just as irrational as asserting the existence of God.
"No belief" is not an athiest position.
Of course it is. A-Theism = Without Theism = Without a belief in God. Pure and simple. Nothing else required.
An athiest holds to something other than God - ie: 'everything is natural'. But he has no way of knowing this. He can only hold that view by belief.
What is it with you and this fixation on beliefs. Why do atheists need something to replace God?
Newsflash! many of us have never even considered the beginnings of the universe or any kind of explanation for anything. A large proportion of the population of the world simply don't have the inclination or maybe (in some cases) the ability to learn enough about the universe to even care.
They simply LACK A BELIEF IN GOD
There is no gaping void that has to be filled with something in the absense of god. They are quite content and simply have no need of some god to make them feel better.
I think maybe that as a believer in god, you feel that faith is something that we need to have. Maybe you can't get to grips with the fact that some of us just don't need it.
Who knows?
Thus unfounded belief in nature on the one hand and no complete way of commenting on the non-existance of God on the other.
I will spell it out one more time.
  • I have no belief in nature!
  • I have no belief in God!
  • I do have belief that this computer is real, and so is my car, house etc.
  • I do NOT have a belief that these things are all that there are in the universe. There may well be something more. I don't know and I don't particularly care.
  • I have NO reason to even suspect that there is a god.
  • I have NO reason to even suspect that the tooth fairy is real either. (and yes the two ARE comparable IMO)
  • Up till now, science has quite satisfactorily explained everything. I don't see a reason to suspect this will change. This isn't faith or even belief. Just a strong reasoned probability.
Atheism is thus irrational - as it only deals with a portion of what is possible not all that is possible. It is a stance based on belief in something without evidence for the something thus shares the attributes of a religion.
Uh.. No! I don't think so.
Anything that is "possible" to happen must eventually have an impact on the real world. Once it does then science is all over it. If a ghost is sighted in an old ruin then that means it is generating photons (to be seen with). Photons are real and measurable so science can deal with them. Same with sounds and moving objects.
If god so much as moves a rock then we have got him. Until then it would appear that ramblings about some supremely powerful being who has never left so much as an unexplainable scratch mark on the world in 4.5 billion years of existence is about as feasible as a gang of chickens building a flying machine to escape their fenced enclosure.
"Them chickens is up to summat!"
It is every bit as irrational to hold no belief in Star wars as it is to hold no belief in god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 8:19 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Phat, posted 08-28-2005 3:36 PM PurpleYouko has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 250 of 329 (237245)
08-26-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by purpledawn
08-26-2005 8:45 AM


In a nutshell
purpledawn writes:
It is not up to the atheist to find your invisible God or the supernatural realm that you claim exists etc
I never said it was. But he needs to show that the borders within he CHOSES to investigate are the only borders there are. And he can't. Thus he doesn't know what borders there may be. Thus he doesn't know. Thus athiesm via belief that the borders he has are the only borders there are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by purpledawn, posted 08-26-2005 8:45 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by purpledawn, posted 08-26-2005 10:28 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 251 of 329 (237247)
08-26-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by PurpleYouko
08-26-2005 8:49 AM


Re: STOP PRESS: Iano is a filthy, manky, greasy sinner - but he ain't alone!!
iano writes:
Except to say there is no absolute right and wrong is an absolute statement - which puts you in a Catch-22 situation - because man is not in a positon to make absolute statements.
purpleyouko writes:
Just wanted to point out that you just made one though. By your own reasoning you cannot say that man is absolutely unable to make absolute statements. It is self contradictory to say so.
Well spotted. I'm humbled

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-26-2005 8:49 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 252 of 329 (237250)
08-26-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by iano
08-26-2005 10:14 AM


Re: In a nutshell
quote:
But he needs to show that the borders within he CHOSES to investigate are the only borders there are. And he can't.
No he doesn't. You are the one who claims that there are other borders. You have to make those borders known.
quote:
Thus athiesm via belief that the borders he has are the only borders there are.
Again that is not atheism. An atheist does not believe that gods exist period. He does not believe that the information, or lack there of, provided is true.
The atheist can only investigate what you present. If you present nothing, then there is nothing to investigate.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 10:14 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 253 of 329 (237254)
08-26-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by PurpleYouko
08-26-2005 9:01 AM


Re: Fire in the hole...
purpleyouko writes:
Come on Ian. You know full well that I didn't mean that atheists are stupid
I was only ribbing you PY. Is that why you looked at my absolute statement so carefully. Tit-4-tat?? Mieeooooooow
This is the argument in a nutshell. An athiest doesn't belief nothing he believes something. We are agreed on that. And what he does believe is that Nature Is everything or that Nature Is Most Likely Everything - No God Is Needed To Explain Anything
The atheist needs to show reasonably, that the borders within he CHOSES to investigate are the only borders there are. And he can't. Reasonably thus, he doesn't know where the true borders may lie. Thus atheism is rationalised only via a belief that the borders he works within are the only borders there are.
Thus atheism is a belief. Which contradicts the title of this thread.
edited to insert the word 'reasonably' twice and to tidy up
This message has been edited by iano, 26-Aug-2005 04:07 PM

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-26-2005 9:01 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-26-2005 10:52 AM iano has replied
 Message 255 by purpledawn, posted 08-26-2005 11:04 AM iano has not replied
 Message 258 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-26-2005 11:53 AM iano has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 254 of 329 (237258)
08-26-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by iano
08-26-2005 10:32 AM


Re: Fire in the hole...
The atheist needs to show that the borders within he CHOSES to investigate are the only borders there are. And he can't. Thus he doesn't know where the true borders may lie. He doesn't know. Thus atheism via belief that the borders he works within are the only borders there are.
Why would an atheist choose to investigate? period. Atheism has no affiliation with investigation. It stops dead at a non-belief in God.
As I pointed out, You don't need to have a different belief in order to lack one in god.
From my point of view, I DO choose to investigate but many don't have the inclination or the interest to do so. Your argument only addresses someone like me who actually takes an interest and is analytically minded enough investigate it. It is invalid against someone who simply doesn't care.
As you may also have noticed, I DO NOT personally believe that there are limits to what science will be able to address. There are many scientists who actively and continually attempt to push back the boundaries. Thus the borders between science and the supernatural are constantly changing.
The Scientific Atheist (ie. people like me) does not attempt to define these borders and therefore has no beliefs that s/he is working within them.
Therefore no belief and no faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 10:32 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 11:36 AM PurpleYouko has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 255 of 329 (237260)
08-26-2005 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by iano
08-26-2005 10:32 AM


Atheism is not a Belief
quote:
Thus atheism is a belief. Which contradicts the title of this thread.
In case you missed it check out Message 248.
I have clearly shown that atheism is not a belief.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 10:32 AM iano 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