Theists insist on labeling us ...

smcgiff

This snippet is from a larger debate about women in the modern world. This section relates to religion.

After the ad, this snippet from the BBC a nun and muslim lady discuss atheism as just another belief system. AAARRGGGHH


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24678441

Are they that threatened by us?

Kidchameleon

smcgiff wrote: »

This snippet is from a larger debate about women in the modern world. This section relates to religion.

After the ad, this snippet from the BBC a nun and muslim lady discuss atheism as just another belief system. AAARRGGGHH


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24678441

Are they that threatened by us?

Until we know for sure where we came from I'm afraid it is a belief system.

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Until we know for sure where we came from I'm afraid it is a belief system.

I can name one part of that system. "Lack of belief in gods".

To make it a "system" I presume you can name some more?

Kidchameleon

Dades wrote: »

I can name one part of that system. "Lack of belief in gods".

To make it a "system" I presume you can name some more?

Perhaps not a belief system, but it is a belief.

endacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Perhaps not a belief system, but it is a belief.

It's a non-acceptance of fairy tales that are passed on by word of mouth. If the fairy tales aren't told for a generation, they disappear. Unlike say, facts. Which remain open to re-discovery and understanding.

swampgas

The thing about science is that most religious people tacitly accept science anyway - every time they use modern medicine or turn on a phone.

There seems to be this other meaning to "science" which means "an alternative creation myth".

It's a bit weird - they don't talk about people having faith in gravity, or faith in medicine, or faith in technology, yet all of these things are just as much science as the big bang theory.

Also amusing is that you have a bunch of religious people there whose own religions are all pretty much exclusionary - the Muslim and the Christian surely don't think that they can both be right, do they?

ScumLord

Atheism basically is a belief system. I think belief systems are just the way the mind deals with the world. At this stage the whole debate has been packed up inside my brain and put into a "that's what I believe" box.

endacl

ScumLord wrote: »

Atheism basically is a belief system. I think belief systems are just the way the mind deals with the world. At this stage the whole debate has been packed up inside my brain and put into a "that's what I believe" box.

You could be more wrong, but only a teeny tiny bit.

Turtwig

ScumLord wrote: »

Atheism basically is a belief system. I think belief systems are just the way the mind deals with the world. At this stage the whole debate has been packed up inside my brain and put into a "that's what I believe" box.

Atheism is a belief in the same way bald is a hair colour. You can of course define bald as a hair colour and atheism as a belief but both definitions are redundant.

smacl

ScumLord wrote: »

Atheism basically is a belief system. I think belief systems are just the way the mind deals with the world. At this stage the whole debate has been packed up inside my brain and put into a "that's what I believe" box.

Not really. Theists often seem to make the mistake that atheists are in some way defined by their atheism, in the same way that theology often plays an important role in the life of theists. To me at least, this is not the case. Not believing in God is more like not watching Big Brother, not eating at McDonalds or not listening to One Direction. In my own tiny mind, my atheism doesn't define me in any significant sense. That I don't eat at McDonalds doesn't imply I like Burger King, similarly because I don't adhere to one mainstream belief system doesn't imply I have or need another alternative. Atheism does not have an orthodoxy. There is no single common philosophy, ethos, or political leaning that can be used to define atheists collectively.

professore

smacl wrote: »

Not really. Theists often seem to make the mistake that atheists are in some way defined by their atheism, in the same way that theology often plays an important role in the life of theists. To me at least, this is not the case. Not believing in God is more like not watching Big Brother, not eating at McDonalds or not listening to One Direction. In my own tiny mind, my atheism doesn't define me in any significant sense. That I don't eat at McDonalds doesn't imply I like Burger King, similarly because I don't adhere to one mainstream belief system doesn't imply I have or need another alternative. Atheism does not have an orthodoxy. There is no single common philosophy, ethos, or political leaning that can be used to define atheists collectively.

I feel the same. Maybe we should form an exclusive club?

I haven't been to Burger King in ages. I still believe in it though! Far better than McDonalds. Mmmmm burger king!

smacl

professore wrote: »

I feel the same. Maybe we should form an exclusive club?

I haven't been to Burger King in ages. I still believe in it though! Far better than McDonalds. Mmmmm burger king!

Had a rather superb shish kebab in a wee Lebanese place on the way home from the pub last night. People knock Islam, but in my ever so humble opinion they knock seven shades of Shiite out the yanks when it comes to fast food

freedominacup

smacl wrote: »

Not really. Theists often seem to make the mistake that atheists are in some way defined by their atheism, in the same way that theology often plays an important role in the life of theists. To me at least, this is not the case. Not believing in God is more like not watching Big Brother, not eating at McDonalds or not listening to One Direction. In my own tiny mind, my atheism doesn't define me in any significant sense. That I don't eat at McDonalds doesn't imply I like Burger King, similarly because I don't adhere to one mainstream belief system doesn't imply I have or need another alternative. Atheism does not have an orthodoxy. There is no single common philosophy, ethos, or political leaning that can be used to define atheists collectively.

In your opinion what is the single common philosophy, ethos or political leaning that can define theists collectively?

PopePalpatine

KFC is where it's at.

Dades

freedominacup wrote: »

In your opinion what is the single common philosophy, ethos or political leaning that can define theists collectively?

I assume it's belief in the existence of at least one deity.

Interestingly, unlike deism, I guess the god(s) of theism have to have some backstory which forms the "belief system".

Nobody ever says "I believe in the god Wancor!" They say: "I believe in the god Wancor... and he watches you masturbate and decrees you cannot eat kiwi fruit."

smacl

freedominacup wrote: »

In your opinion what is the single common philosophy, ethos or political leaning that can define theists collectively?

There isn't one, in any general sense. But there are to a greater or lesser extent specifically for any given religion. For example, in Christianity the ten commandments form a fundamental part of their system of ethics. Most theists are members of a religious collective, and as such will have many shared commonly held truths in addition to the existence of their god. People who believe in a God, gods, spirit world, or even supernatural carbohydrate persona but don't subscribe to a mainstream or even minority religion are pretty rare. While technically they could be called theists, most other theists would refer to them either as pagans, or less kindly fantasists or nutters.

tl;dr theists collect themselves into groups according to their religious beliefs, and these religions include various dogma. Atheists don't.

oldrnwisr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Perhaps not a belief system, but it is a belief.

No, atheism is not a belief or a belief system.

Atheism at its core is simply a lack of belief in gods. I am an atheist and thus I lack belief in gods, they just don't feature among the things I believe in.

You see, words are only basic descriptors, which is why there are so many of them. They are labels for physical and abstract objects which allow two people (or more) to understand one another. If I say to you that I am sitting on a chair, the word chair will give you a basic idea of a physical object. If I so choose, I can improve this label by adding additional descriptors, i.e. I am sitting on a dark green leather reclining chair. Each added label allows you to get a better picture of the object I am trying to describe. However, the root term in every description is necessarily ambiguous. So it is with atheism. I am an atheist. Moreover, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in gods but I do not know whether or not there are any. What you are describing is gnostic atheism, the positive belief that there are no gods. It might be in your interest though to find out how many atheists subscribe to such a viewpoint before brazenly asserting that atheism itself is a belief.

Another way to look at this issue is the idea of thenull hypothesis in statistics. Let's say that we were to set up an experiment to test whether coffee causes cancer. The hypothesis that we are trying to test is that "coffee can be shown to significantly increase cancer risk". However in running our experiment we are also testing the null hypothesis that "coffee cannot be shown to significantly increase cancer risk". To reject the null hypothesis our evidence must be sufficient to demonstrate the hypothesis beyond the effect of random chance or other error. So it is with atheism. For every theistic claim that "god X exists", the null hypothesis is that "god X does not exist". This is not a belief, it is the position before proof. In order to reject the null hypothesis the person claiming that "god X exists" must demonstrate sufficient evidence.

We somehow seem to keep having these debates on this forum with people of all theistic positions intent on making the case that atheism is a positive belief. Most of the time this occurs due to a lack of understanding but sometimes, just sometimes it is much more sinister. It's something we're used to seeing in the abortion debate with pro-lifers and priests claiming that abortion only means a procedure with the intention of taking a life and that those performed to save the life of a mother for example, don't count. Such goalpost-shifting is dangerous and unwise. If you really feel the need to try and distort the meaning of atheism to make your own position seem less hopeless, then maybe you should reconsider your own position first.

Finally, I want to leave you a video which explains in more and better detail the points I am trying to get across.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

nagirrac

freedominacup wrote: »

In your opinion what is the single common philosophy, ethos or political leaning that can define theists collectively?

The closest is the perennial philosophy. Although it is an ancient set of ideas that dates back to prehistory, it was first documented as far as I know in the Bhagavad-Gita which, thought to have been written between the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. Aldous Huxley wrote a book called The Perennial Philosophy which analyzed all the world's religions and found these themes running through all of them.

The way Huxley defined it is as follows: "The phenomenal world of matter and consciousness is a manifestation of a divine ground within which all realities have their being and without which they would not exist. Humans have the ability to both know about this diving ground from inference, but can also experience it through direct intuition. Humans have a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal self (spirit), this spirit is of the same nature as the divine ground. The purpose of human life on earth is for man to recognize and identify with this eternal self and in doing so gain knowledge of the divine ground (enlightenment)".

All religions appear to stem from this ancient philosophy, and the mystical religions all include techniques for identifying with the eternal self and gaining enlightenment. Many of the rules within religions, good and bad, are by and large later add ons as religion became a method of control used by states.

freedominacup

nagirrac wrote: »

The closest is the perennial philosophy. Although it is an ancient set of ideas that dates back to prehistory, it was first documented as far as I know in the Bhagavad-Gita which, thought to have been written between the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. Aldous Huxley wrote a book called The Perennial Philosophy which analyzed all the world's religions and found these themes running through all of them.

The way Huxley defined it is as follows: "The phenomenal world of matter and consciousness is a manifestation of a divine ground within which all realities have their being and without which they would not exist. Humans have the ability to both know about this diving ground from inference, but can also experience it through direct intuition. Humans have a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal self (spirit), this spirit is of the same nature as the divine ground. The purpose of human life on earth is for man to recognize and identify with this eternal self and in doing so gain knowledge of the divine ground (enlightenment)".

All religions appear to stem from this ancient philosophy, and the mystical religions all include techniques for identifying with the eternal self and gaining enlightenment. Many of the rules within religions, good and bad, are by and large later add ons as religion became a method of control used by states.

You're reaching I think.

Is it safe to say at this stage that the lack of a single common philosophy, ethos or political leaning that defines them as a group is one thing that atheists and theists have in common?

nagirrac

freedominacup wrote: »

You're reaching I think.

Is it safe to say at this stage that the lack of a single common philosophy, ethos or political leaning that defines them as a group is one thing that atheists and theists have in common?

It's not my idea so I can't be reaching. The idea of the perennial philosophy was around long before Huxley, its just he studied religions and came up with this common definition that defined their origins. It was something that preoccupied him and influenced a lot of his writing.

Leaving out the "divine" word there is nothing in the philosophy that atheists cannot explore, in fact many atheists do, Sam Harris springs to mind, and most Buddhists for that matter who make no attempt to try and define a God.

Personally speaking I would say the thing that defines theists and atheists alike today is materialism, and a rejection in practical terms of the idea of spirit. Religion as an institution and as dogma still exists for many people, but its a thing that gets typically left aside once they walk out of church.

Piliger

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, atheism is not a belief or a belief system.

Atheism at its core is simply a lack of belief in gods. I am an atheist and thus I lack belief in gods, they just don't feature among the things I believe in.


We somehow seem to keep having these debates on this forum with people of all theistic positions intent on making the case that atheism is a positive belief. Most of the time this occurs due to a lack of understanding but sometimes, just sometimes it is much more sinister. It's something we're used to seeing in the abortion debate with pro-lifers and priests claiming that abortion only means a procedure with the intention of taking a life and that those performed to save the life of a mother for example, don't count. Such goalpost-shifting is dangerous and unwise. If you really feel the need to try and distort the meaning of atheism to make your own position seem less hopeless, then maybe you should reconsider your own position first.

Very well said.

smacl

freedominacup wrote: »

Is it safe to say at this stage that the lack of a single common philosophy, ethos or political leaning that defines them as a group is one thing that atheists and theists have in common?

No. The only thing that defines atheists at present as a group is that they don't believe in a God or gods. Theists tend to break down into groups by religion, where each religion does have a certain amount of common philosophy. While there are atheist groups that define their atheism as including a shared world view, this runs contrary to the currently accepted definition of the word atheist.

It is also wrong. For example you could equally well say that not all atheists have a pair of polka dot underpants, neither do all theists. This is something else they have in common. If you use shared negatives in this way, this list of commonalities you could draw up is infinite.

Kidchameleon

Two groups of atheists:

1. Don't believe in God.


2. Don't believe in God. Smug. "Higher intelligence". Slag off religion - religiously.

Pherekydes

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Two groups of atheists:

1. Don't believe in God.


2. Don't believe in God. Smug. "Higher intelligence". Slag off religion - religiously.

Still labelling...

P.S. One's a subset of the other. :pac:

seamus

The "Atheism is a belief system" is the old adage of "Never argue with a fool, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience", come to life.

It's a tacit acceptance that religion is a big pile of stuff that is completely without foundation and therefore unprovable. Attempting to slot atheism into the same box lets them say, "See! You know nothing either!". It's what happens when your argument has been backed into a corner and shown to be nonsense - you try to claim that everyone else is in the same corner and all arguments nonsense, so nobody wins.

[-0-]

Not this again.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

2. Don't believe in God. Smug. "Higher intelligence". Slag off religion - religiously.

If the religious want the non-religious to think they're smart, then perhaps the religious should develop some smarter beliefs.

[-0-]

Religious people fail to use logic. You can't expect someone who is attached to belief, and faith, to get that rejection of belief is not a belief system. I don't believe a unicorn created the universe. That does not mean I am part of a belief system of non belief.

Christians are just as atheist as we are. There are thousands of gods they don't believe in. Thor, for example. They just have issues getting over that one god.

Piliger

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Two groups of atheists:

1. Don't believe in God.


2. Don't believe in God. Smug. "Higher intelligence". Slag off religion - religiously.

Yes. The old fashioned deferential and subservient kind and the modern confident out of the closet kind.

ScumLord

smacl wrote: »

Not really. Theists often seem to make the mistake that atheists are in some way defined by their atheism

I'm not defined by atheism I've been influenced by a lot of things even religion. But I strongly believe there is no god.

Not believing in God is more like not watching Big Brother, not eating at McDonalds or not listening to One Direction.

So did you just shrug your shoulders one day and decide you don't believe in god? It took me a while to come to my conclusions and even though I assert it as good as fact these days it is still just a belief, I have no way of knowing so I have to believe it based on overwhelming evidence.

There are two realities as far as I'm concerned. There's the real world and then there's the constructed world inside that heads of people. What we see if only a construction of some of the real world inside our heads. Just about everything I have is a belief in some form I believe the car manufacturers explanation for how a car works without getting into the details too much. I think atheists belief there is no god has many similarities to the way people treat their belief of god. Not all atheists but it seems a chunk do.

Atheism does not have an orthodoxy. There is no single common philosophy, ethos, or political leaning that can be used to define atheists collectively.

There is no single common philosophy in any of the religions either, they all diverge even within themselves. Over all they all believe in god and overall atheist by their very definition believe their is no god. As with the religions religions they argue over the particulars.


It's not like the atheist forum ignores religion, all that's talked about in here is the lack of god, that's not a lack of belief, it's affirmation of the believe that there is no god.

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, atheism is not a belief or a belief system.

Atheism at its core is simply a lack of belief in gods. I am an atheist and thus I lack belief in gods, they just don't feature among the things I believe in.

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not defined by atheism I've been influenced by a lot of things even religion. But I strongly believe there is no god..

You're both entitled to call yourselves atheists. The word is imprecise enough to mean both the null hypothesis (a simple lack of belief in gods), but it also means the positive assertion of belief that no gods exist.
IMO the main difference between these two is the context of what the majority of other people around you believe. If religion was rare, then atheism would be a simple lack of belief. If religion is common, then there is an element of "bucking the trend" by asserting that you don't believe in it. In other words, you must have actually decided for some reason to not "go with the flow".

nagirrac

The last two posts are a good summary of the difficult issue of labeling anyone's beliefs. Just as there is a wide spectrum of believers there is also a wide spectrum of non believers. "I lack a belief in God" and "I strongly believe there is no God (due to overwhelming evidence)" are very different statements, and one is clearly a belief and a strongly held belief at that as it is claimed to be evidence based.

What is the overwhelming evidence to support a claim that there is no God? Does it not imply a specific concept of God with specific attributes to reject it?

smacl

ScumLord wrote: »

So did you just shrug your shoulders one day and decide you don't believe in god? It took me a while to come to my conclusions and even though I assert it as good as fact these days it is still just a belief, I have no way of knowing so I have to believe it based on overwhelming evidence.

I'm a second generation atheist; both parents also atheists. Belief in a god was simply not part of my upbringing, which in the late 60s and early 70s had me labelled as a pagan rather than an atheist by many of my peers. I've never believed in a God, afterlife or any of the other baggage associated with religion. Nor do i believe in ghosts, the supernatural.

I'm agnostic insofar as I don't believe the non-existence of any god can be dis-proven, but then nor can any of an infinite number of fantasies.

There is no single common philosophy in any of the religions either, they all diverge even within themselves. Over all they all believe in god and overall atheist by their very definition believe their is no god. As with the religions religions they argue over the particulars.

I suspect many people who believe in a God have more in common than just that belief. Massive numbers of them don't seem to believe in death for example, and similarly believe that all their actions are being watched. While this can't be described as a single well defined philosophy, it certainly dictates how religious people are liable to behave in certain circumstances. (e.g. you don't see too many atheist suicide bombers)

It's not like the atheist forum ignores religion, all that's talked about in here is the lack of god, that's not a lack of belief, it's affirmation of the believe that there is no god.

Organised religion has proven over time to be an extremely effective mechanism for controlling massive numbers of people in the lower echelons of society, done in such a way as to defer the injustice of the inequality they bear until after they're dead. Cost effective or what? Historically, it probably has been a very necessary social mechanism in forming the civilization in which we now live. I'm interested in religion, because I think this mechanism needs to be understood, and when it is to be dismantled, it should be done very carefully.

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

What is the overwhelming evidence to support a claim that there is no God? Does it not imply a specific concept of God with specific attributes to reject it?

There is no evidence that I'm aware of, either to support the existence of God or the lack of existence of God. The same could be said equally of any other of a potentially infinite number of fantastic hypotheses you or anyone else could imagine. Given zero supporting evidence, the probability of God existing versus any one of these other hypotheses is exactly equal. Thus the probability of God existing and all of these other hypotheses being false comes out at one over infinity, which is somewhere between zero and negligible depending on where your standing. While I'm agnostic, I'm only the tiniest bit agnostic

The more interesting question for me is why so many people do believe in God?

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

What is the overwhelming evidence to support a claim that there is no God? Does it not imply a specific concept of God with specific attributes to reject it?

The agnostic atheist does not require overwhelming evidence to support the belief that there are are no gods. A lack of evidence following investigation, combined with observable inconsistencies in the established religions, is enough to convince me for the moment. As the position is an agnostic belief it is based on "convincing" rather than overwhelming or indisputable evidence.

As most theists believe in a personal interventionist type god, so most atheists reject that concept.
The more abstract the idea of the godhead becomes, the more difficult and irrelevant it is to form an opinion rejecting the plausibility of the idea.
So if god is everything and nothing, how can anyone disagree with that? But I agree with smacl, the more interesting thing is looking at organised religion as a historical mechanism for manipulating people, and what would happen to the differently developed societies if it disappeared.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

The agnostic atheist does not require overwhelming evidence to support the belief that there are are no gods. A lack of evidence following investigation, combined with observable inconsistencies in the established religions, is enough to convince me for the moment. As the position is an agnostic belief it is based on "convincing" rather than overwhelming or indisputable evidence.

I agree and I find the agnostic atheist position a very reasonable and quite convincing one. I find the strong atheism position of "overwhelming evidence to believe there is no God" not so reasonable.

Let me just explore just one example. Many modern day atheists quote The God Delusion as a strong argument against the God hypothesis. The God Delusion is my opinion does not stand as a good argument against religion's role in society let alone an argument against the God hypothesis. Any half reasoned analysis of many of Dawkins' claims expose them as utterly unverifiable and unscientific. Lets take the claim in the introduction that raising children within a religious tradition is child abuse, possibly worse than sexual abuse (maybe he means mild sexual abuse:mad:). Now if Dawkins cited many studies that examined many thousands of children, raised in various religious and non religious environments, and then followed these children through adulthood to see how they fared in terms of mental health, he would have an argument. Dawkins doesn't do this , he based his argument on a few letters he got from people who had had bad experiences in childhood. Exactly the kind of personal testimony and anecdotal evidence that he rails against in God believers.

This is just one example and there are countless others. The problem it exposes is that for people like Dawkins and other strong atheists, atheism has become a dogma. Not just religion must be dismissed but anything that questions materialistic reductionism or suggests purpose to the universe must be fought tooth and nail. Even the most speculative hypotheses with zero empirical evidence that demonstrates how random and meaningless the universe and life is must be embraced (multiverse), while any hypothesis that suggests otherwise is pseudoscience, and those studying these fields must be attacked.

Science should never be used to back up belief in God or lack of belief in God, both fundamentalist religious and dogmatic atheists are wrongheaded in this regard. Religion should be studied scientifically as you say from the perspective of what effect it has on individuals and on societies, in terms of what people actually believe not what others think they believe.

The example of suicide bombers raised by smacl is also a good one. There is evidence that 9/11 was a massive turning point for many Americans and turned many against religion (unsurprisingly). What is interesting is when you actually study suicide bombers, the results are not so obvious. I will have to dig up the source but I read a study that demonstrated the correlation between suicide bombing and presence of a foreign military presence in their country (Saudia Arabia for example, where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from)was 20X more significant than the correlation with a radical religion. It wasn't their religion that drove these people, it was their desire for independence from foreign influence and economic opportunity for young people in those countries, the same issues that drove the Arab spring movements. Things are not always as obvious as they seem.

SmilingLurker

Science as a methodology cannot prove anything. For it to be useful, you need a testable hypothesis. I have never heard a religion put forward a testable theory.

Science is a methodology of disproving theories. You could not disprove the general concept of god, as it is not defined, and is not testable.

I don't believe in any god as I have no evidence to do so. I am more than willing to be converted with a testable theory.

Do I fall into the old fashioned or smug atheist category?

nagirrac

old fashioned imho

smacl

nagirrac wrote: »

Science should never be used to back up belief in God or lack of belief in God, both fundamentalist religious and dogmatic atheists are wrongheaded in this regard. Religion should be studied scientifically as you say from the perspective of what effect it has on individuals and on societies, in terms of what people actually believe not what others think they believe.

If this is the case, how exactly do you support a belief? More importantly, why does a religious group seek to convince the masses that their beliefs are correct when they have no feasible means of doing so, yet at the same time hold that other religious groups beliefs are false? One issue that I have with belief systems that deny proof is that they can be used too easily to manipulate people. For example, people are by and large afraid of dying, so the priest tells them if they obey the rules set down by his church, they can become immortal. People follow the priest and his rules because they really would like to cheat death, survival being a very basic human urge, so they follow the priests rules and start believing his stories. Entering into a belief system where you believe things you would like to be true to me is tantamount to self delusion. Telling others that your unsupported beliefs are the only truth is what I would consider wrong headed. While science wont prove or disprove a belief system, a small amount of critical thinking should make us question motive.

nagirrac

smacl wrote: »

If this is the case, how exactly do you support a belief? More importantly, why does a religious group seek to convince the masses that their beliefs are correct when they have no feasible means of doing so, yet at the same time hold that other religious groups beliefs are false? One issue that I have with belief systems that deny proof is that they can be used too easily to manipulate people. For example, people are by and large afraid of dying, so the priest tells them if they obey the rules set down by his church, they can become immortal. People follow the priest and his rules because they really would like to cheat death, survival being a very basic human urge, so they follow the priests rules and start believing his stories. Entering into a belief system where you believe things you would like to be true to me is tantamount to self delusion. Telling others that your unsupported beliefs are the only truth is what I would consider wrong headed. While science wont prove or disprove a belief system, a small amount of critical thinking should make us question motive.

Most religions, and in particular the Catholic church, have utterly failed humanity. The reality though is throughout human history we have had beliefs in spirituality, and long before organized religions with hierarchies came along. These beliefs have evolved with us as any other aspect of who we are has evolved, and are likely with us since we developed self awareness whenever that was. The question is are these beliefs harmful or beneficial to individuals and to societies as a whole, and that is a very difficult question to explore on an unemotional basis.

For example it is hard to imagine how anyone in Ireland could profess to be Catholic after all the abuse scandals, but yet they do. Yet, when you explore people's beliefs many are only nominally Catholic, they believe in something that is hard to define and the source of which is buried in the mists of time in their evolved minds. Much of Irish religion seems a mix of druidism, faeries, piseogs, Nordic beliefs (some of the oldest traceable religious beliefs), and most recently Christianity. Its true people latch onto whatever religion is the most convenient or influential in society, but even most who do not participate in religion believe in many spiritual concepts. What would people be like without these beliefs is an interesting question.

Why people believe what they believe is a really difficult subject and one we are unlikely to understand better until we understand mind better.

El_Duderino 09

nagirrac wrote: »

This is just one example and there are countless others. The problem it exposes is that for people like Dawkins and other strong atheists, atheism has become a dogma. Not just religion must be dismissed but anything that questions materialistic reductionism or suggests purpose to the universe must be fought tooth and nail. Even the most speculative hypotheses with zero empirical evidence that demonstrates how random and meaningless the universe and life is must be embraced (multiverse), while any hypothesis that suggests otherwise is pseudoscience, and those studying these fields must be attacked.

So much wrong with this paragraph.

1. Dawkins in not a 7 on the "Dawkins Scale".

2. Atheism has become a dogma? Not saying some people are not dogmatic but has it not always been thus?

3. The thing that makes a hypothesis like mulitverse interesting is that, its an intriguing idea to think about as a mental exercise. The thing that makes it different from god ideas is that we are working towards testing it. If it is disproven it will be discarded as an interesting idea that was untrue. I don't know anyone who claims Gnostic belief in multiverse. Do you?

Maybe you were doing Poe. Apologies if that's what you were doing.

nagirrac

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So much wrong with this paragraph.

1. Dawkins in not a 7 on the "Dawkins Scale".

2. Atheism has become a dogma? Not saying some people are not dogmatic but has it not always been thus?

3. The thing that makes a hypothesis like mulitverse interesting is that, its an intriguing idea to think about as a mental exercise. The thing that makes it different from god ideas is that we are working towards testing it. If it is disproven it will be discarded as an interesting idea that was untrue. I don't know anyone who claims Gnostic belief in multiverse. Do you?

Maybe you were doing Poe. Apologies if that's what you were doing.

Not doing Poe:)
Dawkins has said he is a 6.9 on his own scale. My point about Dawkins is the length he is willing to go using unscientific means to back up his 6.9 belief. Don't make a claim unless you have evidence is a common mantra of atheists, and one I support. Where is the evidence that raising children in religious homes amounts to child abuse? Lets have the scientific evidence Richard and not just a letter someone wrote to you.

The God hypothesis is an intriguing idea to think about as a mental exercise. Part of the God hypothesis is that God is outside our observable universe, so there's about as much chance currently of our observing God as there is of observing a universe other than ours i.e. zero. How do you suggest we test for a multiverse?

Piliger

nagirrac wrote: »

The last two posts are a good summary of the difficult issue of labeling anyone's beliefs. Just as there is a wide spectrum of believers there is also a wide spectrum of non believers. "I lack a belief in God" and "I strongly believe there is no God (due to overwhelming evidence)" are very different statements, and one is clearly a belief and a strongly held belief at that as it is claimed to be evidence based.

The truth is most people use the language inexactly when they try to express their views on a god or no god. They often use the word 'believe', both in favour and in opposition, but many people misinterpret that word.

What is the overwhelming evidence to support a claim that there is no God? Does it not imply a specific concept of God with specific attributes to reject it?

What is the overwhelming evidence to support a claim that there are no leprechauns ? What is the overwhelming evidence to support a claim that there are no ghosts ? These are all meaningless useless and inane questions.

Piliger

recedite wrote: »

The agnostic atheist does not require overwhelming evidence to support the belief that there are are no gods.

Wtf is an 'agnostic atheist' ? There is no such thing. An agnostic is an agnostic, And Atheist is an atheist. It's not that complicated.

As most theists believe in a personal interventionist type god, so most atheists reject that concept.

You will find that ALL Atheists reject that. Otherwise they are not Atheists.

The more abstract the idea of the godhead becomes, the more difficult and irrelevant it is to form an opinion rejecting the plausibility of the idea.

I don't agree. It is very easy to say I simply do not believe in any such things as gods or other supernatural beings.

El_Duderino 09

nagirrac wrote: »

Not doing Poe:)
Dawkins has said he is a 6.9 on his own scale. My point about Dawkins is the length he is willing to go using unscientific means to back up his 6.9 belief. Don't make a claim unless you have evidence is a common mantra of atheists, and one I support. Where is the evidence that raising children in religious homes amounts to child abuse? Lets have the scientific evidence Richard and not just a letter someone wrote to you.

The God hypothesis is an intriguing idea to think about as a mental exercise. Part of the God hypothesis is that God is outside our observable universe, so there's about as much chance currently of our observing God as there is of observing a universe other than ours i.e. zero. How do you suggest we test for a multiverse?

So we agree that Dawkins in not a 7 on the Dawkins scale.

I don't have a strong opinion on the point of religion as child abuse. Not sure if you're interested but for what it's worth you're not representing his argument accurately. His analogy also involves holding children to impossibly high standards and threatening them with eternal torture when they inevitably fail.

I have no idea how we would test multiverse. I class it as a hypothesis at best. In reality its probably just an interesting idea for now. Just to clarify, I don't believe in multiverses. It's an interesting idea and I couldn't care less if it were disproven tomorrow.

For me the crucial difference is that those who propose multiverse are actively looking for ways to donfirm/disconfirm it as existent in reality. The same cannot be said of gods which makes god claims as interesting as the tall tales my little little cousins come out with. I enjoy their stories, they are interesting to think about, but I don't worry about them being true.

Do you know anyone who claims gnostic belief in multiverse?
Do you know anyone who claims gnostic belief in gods?

Piliger

nagirrac wrote: »

Many modern day atheists quote The God Delusion as a strong argument against the God hypothesis.

It is a devastating destruction of any and all god based hypothesis.

The God Delusion is my opinion does not stand as a good argument against religion's role in society let alone an argument against the God hypothesis. Any half reasoned analysis of many of Dawkins' claims expose them as utterly unverifiable and unscientific.

I don't believe it does, at all.

Lets take the claim in the introduction that raising children within a religious tradition is child abuse, possibly worse than sexual abuse (maybe he means mild sexual abuse:mad:). Now if Dawkins cited many studies that examined many thousands of children, raised in various religious and non religious environments, and then followed these children through adulthood to see how they fared in terms of mental health, he would have an argument. Dawkins doesn't do this , he based his argument on a few letters he got from people who had had bad experiences in childhood.

I don't agree., We don't have to have a 'study' to justify our opinions. He doesn't either. Logic and rational thinking are capable of supporting opinions just as much as some study'. I don't need someone to do a "study" to tell me that having sex with a 6yo is abuse. Do you ?
Parents that impose their religious beliefs on their children deprive them of their birthright, to experience the world and chose their own interpretation of it. That is, in his opinion child abuse. I agree with him.

Exactly the kind of personal testimony and anecdotal evidence that he rails against in God believers.

And quite rightly. He has used rational thinking and logic to come to a conclusion. believers using 'personal testimony and anecdotal evidence' do something very different.

This is just one example and there are countless others.

Indeed. Countless others where Dawkins destroys the nonsene theist arguments.

The problem it exposes is that for people like Dawkins and other strong atheists, atheism has become a dogma.

No. There is no dogma in Atheism. Actually it is quite the complete opposite. And I have never observed or read anything that remotely approaches dogma in Dawkins.

Not just religion must be dismissed but anything that questions materialistic reductionism or suggests purpose to the universe must be fought tooth and nail. Even the most speculative hypotheses with zero empirical evidence that demonstrates how random and meaningless the universe and life is must be embraced (multiverse), while any hypothesis that suggests otherwise is pseudoscience, and those studying these fields must be attacked.

Your use of flowery and emotive language undermines your argument ... "fought tooth and nail". Dawkins is a Scientist who believes in Science and in evidence. As I do, and other Atheists. I don't fight anything tooth and nail. I have no doubt that neither does he. He simply opposes people who try to make claims that have no evidence whatsoever behind them. They are not pseudo science. They are nonsense. And Dawkins has never attacked anyone's claims. He simply demonstrates the nonsense of them.

Science should never be used to back up belief in God or lack of belief in God, both fundamentalist religious and dogmatic atheists are wrongheaded in this regard. Religion should be studied scientifically as you say from the perspective of what effect it has on individuals and on societies, in terms of what people actually believe not what others think they believe.

I have no idea what you are trying to express here. Science should be used to challenge any claim or any hypothesis. Science is the method by which we explore and verify the reality of our world, our universe. It is the ultimate in how we do so.

nagirrac

Piliger wrote: »

Wtf is an 'agnostic atheist' ? There is no such thing. An agnostic is an agnostic, And Atheist is an atheist. It's not that complicated.

This is a fairly simple thing that you seem to be not grasping which goes to the root of all your other claims. One can only be gnostic or agnostic about something based on one's level of knowledge about it, it has nothing to do with belief. For example if I grew up on an island that never had identical twins in its history, and I had a rudimentary understanding of biology, I may not accept such a thing as possible. Someone might tell me such a thing exists and I would say I don't believe you. If someone showed me a picture of identical twins now I have some knowledge, but I can still remain agnostic and claim it was a forgery. If I can rule out it was a forgery I become less agnostic. If I travel and meet identical twins on my travels, I now have much stronger knowledge. This is how one becomes gnostic about something, nothing to do with belief.

Piliger

nagirrac wrote: »

This is a fairly simple thing that you seem to be not grasping which goes to the root of all your other claims. One can only be gnostic or agnostic about something based on one's level of knowledge about it, it has nothing to do with belief. For example if I grew up on an island that never had identical twins in its history, and I had a rudimentary understanding of biology, I may not accept such a thing as possible. Someone might tell me such a thing exists and I would say I don't believe you. If someone showed me a picture of identical twins now I have some knowledge, but I can still remain agnostic and claim it was a forgery. If I can rule out it was a forgery I become less agnostic. If I travel and meet identical twins on my travels, I now have much stronger knowledge. This is how one becomes gnostic about something, nothing to do with belief.

Demonstrating, by use of a very very poor analogy, the accuracy of my post. There is no such thing as an agnostic Atheist.

El_Duderino 09

Piliger wrote: »

Demonstrating, by use of a very very poor analogy, the accuracy of my post. There is no such thing as an agnostic Atheist.

No really this is something you can look up really easily.

Gnosticism is about what one knows or claims to know.
Theism is about what one believes or claims to believe (in relation to god claims)

If you ask theists or atheists most will be agnostic theist/atheist.

You can believe in gods without claiming to have irrefutable evidence. If you hear a theist invoke "faith" it's probably because they believe (theist) and they have faith rather than knowledge (agnostic). Agnostic theist.

gaynorvader

Piliger wrote: »

Demonstrating, by use of a very very poor analogy, the accuracy of my post. There is no such thing as an agnostic Atheist.

You seem to like just spouting your views as if they're facts. It's not a great debating technique to be honest. As for agnostic atheists, I am one. I don't believe there is a god, but I accept that I don't and can't (currently) know if one exists.
I don't know why you're having trouble with this as you've failed to elaborate on why you think there is no such thing, but instead posted assertions with no apparent basis in reality.

nagirrac

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you know anyone who claims gnostic belief in multiverse?
Do you know anyone who claims gnostic belief in gods?

No on the multiverse, and no scientist would ever claim such.

Yes on God. From their perspective it is not a belief, it is knowledge. In modern times those that are most adamant about their knowledge of an afterlife and God are people who have had NDEs. Interestingly, atheists have quite similar experiences during NDEs to believers and regardless of their prior beliefs have broadly the same changes to their beliefs afterwards. The afterlife and divine presence they describe is generally consistent with what believers report (this is based on studies by people who have researched hundreds of NDE cases like Pim van Lommel and Kenneth Ring). This may not prove anything about an afterlife or God but it is quite interesting.

Do you know anyone who teaches their children that they will burn in hell for eternity if they "sin"? Is that concept taught in any school in Ireland? My problem with Dawkins is not that he points out the problems with religion. My problem with him is he is a dreadful philosopher and makes claims with no evidence or greatly exaggerates claims. I am not sure what kind of world he inhabits because it does not match the world I am familiar with.

Page 15 of The God Delusion "The truth is that understated, decent religion is numerically negligible. To the vast majority of believers around the world religion resembles what you hear from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Osama bin Laden or Khomini".

This is simply not the real world, the vast majority of people, religious or non religious are simply decent people. He is constantly erecting and fighting strawmen. How many people in Ireland do you know that resemble Jerry Falwell or Osama bin Laden (and I am not sure bin Laden was so motivated to fight against the West because of religion, in fact the actual evidence suggests not). I live in a fairly typical US suburb and know people of every religion and none, including many muslims, and have never met anyone remotely like Jerry Falwell or a radical Islamist. I am not saying they don't exist but I don't think they are as common or influential as Dawkins' claims.