The Atheism Thread

[Jarid in Cedar]

Practically? We all draw upon our life's experiences and education to make that determination for ourselves.

So when two people make different determination of that then we are back to square one

[lambdacoug]

So when two people make different determination of that then we are back to square one

Yes. Why does a religious belief deserve the extra respect afforded it? I maintain it doesn't. It deserves as much respect as other views, but not more. And yes, I realize I've been disrespectful in the past, I've tried to not be lately.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I agree that this is an accurate description of what is. When you say this is how it should be, do you say that because you think that is the most constructive way to engage with religious people and ideas or do you say that there is something intrinsic about religious belief that justifies applying a different test to them than everything else?

The most constructive way to accomplish anything in the discussion.

[old_gregg]

I agree, but in the context of this conversation what point are you trying to make with that?

To evaluate events in any meaningful way, empiricism is at some point inadequate. Because subjective value systems are necessary in that regard, I'm not sure religion is condemnable on the basis of rationality because the two are incommensurate.

[UtahDan]

The most constructive way to accomplish anything in the discussion.

This has always been my approach. The counterargument is that a lot of religion (think Islam in the middle east, bible literalists) can't be reasoned with. The only way to combat the ideas is not just to engage, but to directly say when they don't make sense like any other idea. The problem I see with this is that it is not effective and it exaggerates the idea that people if faith can't be reasoned out of dogmatic beliefs. You and I are living proof that is wrong.

[UtahDan]

To evaluate events in any meaningful way, empiricism is at some point inadequate. Because subjective value systems are necessary in that regard, I'm not sure religion is condemnable on the basis of rationality because the two are incommensurate.

Can you give an example relating to a claim about reality?

[Jarid in Cedar]

Yes. Why does a religious belief deserve the extra respect afforded it? I maintain it doesn't. It deserves as much respect as other views, but not more. And yes, I realize I've been disrespectful in the past, I've tried to not be lately.

You differentiate between religious belief and the views if an atheist. When in fact they are equivalent. A religious person believes in a God, an atheist believes in the absence of God. Neither position can be proven or supported by anything stronger than their own convictions.

So given that both sides of the coin is a belief or a religion, both positions should be given the same level of respect as you have stated.

[Pelado]

You differentiate between religious belief and the views if an atheist. When in fact they are equivalent. A religious person believes in a God, an atheist believes in the absence of God. Neither position can be proven or supported by anything stronger than their own convictions.

So given that both sides of the coin is a belief or a religion, both positions should be given the same level of respect as you have stated.

I think I know the atheist counterargument - an absence of belief does not equate to a belief in the absence of God. Agnostic atheists do not necessarily believe that there is no God.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Yes, I equate beliefs with actions. If someone believes something, it motivates their behavior. If not, then I think it calls into question just how much they really believed. I was very much influenced by JS's Lectures on Faith in this regard, and I believe there is some truth to the statement that faith is a principle of action. Therefore, when I lost faith in the church and God, I had to leave both because otherwise I would be living a lie and my sense of integrity overcame my desire to conform and please my closest family. Perhaps I'm too simplistic in this view, but belief motivates action, IMO.

So how does belief in a God, or belief that Jesus was resurrected motivate action? I am looking at the most simplistic foundation of faith. Which is faith is belief in something that cannot be verified, tested or proven. Many people have faith/belief, but it does not drive action. I see example in many friends, family, and acquaintances who profess belief, but do not engage in organized religion.

[lambdacoug]

You differentiate between religious belief and the views if an atheist. When in fact they are equivalent. A religious person believes in a God, an atheist believes in the absence of God. Neither position can be proven or supported by anything stronger than their own convictions.

So given that both sides of the coin is a belief or a religion, both positions should be given the same level of respect as you have stated.

The "atheism is a belief" argument is old and tired and has been amply rebutted elsewhere.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I think I know the atheist counterargument - an absence of belief does not equate to a belief in the absence of God. Agnostic atheists do not necessarily believe that there is no God.

The agnostic atheist also does not reject the possibility of God either. They just see the body of evidence working against God's existence. The trouble is that while surveying for evidence, they lose sight of the concept of what belief/faith entails.

[lambdacoug]

The agnostic atheist also does not reject the possibility of God either. They just see the body of evidence working against God's existence. The trouble is that while surveying for evidence, they lose sight of the concept of what belief/faith entails.

The vast majority of atheists are not gnostic atheists, but agnostic atheists. Myself included. However, just because we cannot prove with 100% certainty that there is no god, does not mean we should jump to the conclusion that there is a god. If there is a god and he decided to show himself in a manner that passed scientific muster, I would believe. Until then, though, I'll maintain he doesn't exist. Just like I'll maintain that there are no unicorns or leprechauns.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I don't think respect is the right word because depending on context it has implications about the people who hold the idea or how one might treat them. I think weight would be a better term. So reframed that way, is it correct that I give no weight to religion? Basically I don't give religious claims that cannot be objectively verified or reproduced any weight; the same test that every one applies to every other area of life. I just don't apply some different standard to religious ideas.

I don't say nothing in religion is based on rational thought or that its claims about reality cannot be rational. They can just like anything. For me personally, I just don't give them a pass when they aren't. So in the larger context of what I was thinking about, the question is whether I or others should just leave those ideas alone and not comment on them. Is human progress held back when people don't insist that the earth is not flat or that intelligent design is totally unsupported by evidence? But on the other hand, I'm not sure that it is productive to confront ideas with evidence that were not arrived at by objectively observable or producible evidence.

I am the one saying religious belief is not grounded in rational thought. In fact, I fully understand that my own religious beliefs are centered in irrational thought. Most people cannot explain or describe why they have the beliefs that they hold. They have experiences and events that bolster their beliefs, but these events do not "prove" them.

It is akin to trying to explain why you love your child. Most animals in the world do not even provide basic survival means for offspring after birth, let alone care for them and love them. How do you test the love someone has for a child, spouse, or parent? You can make observation, but you are still only going to be able to draw conclusions that are biased by you own dogma.

[Jarid in Cedar]

The vast majority of atheists are not gnostic atheists, but agnostic atheists. Myself included. However, just because we cannot prove with 100% certainty that there is no god, does not mean we should jump to the conclusion that there is a god. If there is a god and he decided to show himself in a manner that passed scientific muster, I would believe. Until then, though, I'll maintain he doesn't exist. Just like I'll maintain that there are no unicorns or leprechauns.

You have chosen to set artificial parameters to which God must meet to verify existence. If these parameters are not satisfied, it then "confirms" your belief that God does not exist.

The best professor(physiology) I had in college framed the scientific method in this way:

Laws are observable events. I let go of the apple and it falls to the ground. This happens every single time I let go of the apple. The Law of Gravity.

Theories are attempts to explain observable events. Objects with mass are attracted to each other. The current working theory on the law of gravity.

Experimentation is the process of setting up artificial parameters(also know as controlling the variables) in order to lend more strength to the theory. IOW, to "prove" the theory.

But his dogma was that the scientific method cannot "prove" anything. All that the results of an experiment could show was that, within the artificial parameters that you chose, your theory was valid. But, other chosen parameters could just as easily invalidate the theory.

To tie this in, you have set a metric for proof, but your metric can be flawed. Meaning God can easily exist outside of the box that you have set as a requirement for proof of existence.

As far as the unicorns and leprechauns, the existence of your conscious mind cannot be proven by scientific endevour, but I will still believe that you have one.

[Pelado]

Just like I'll maintain that there are no unicorns or leprechauns.

As far as the unicorns and leprechauns, the existence of your conscious mind cannot be proven by scientific endevour, but I will still believe that you have one.

This is folly.