Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac wrote: »

I think we will just have to agree to disagree marienbad.

I would stick with the standard definition of Ideology as a "system of ideas or ideals that form the basis for an economic or political theory or policy". It can be very broad, diverse and inclusive, as most western democracies are now, or it can be very narrow and exclusive as many regimes in the 20th century were, and some still are. I fully agree for most of the 20th century Ireland was narrow and exclusive due to the influence of the RCC and the fact that 90%+ of the population was RC (close to 100% in many rural communities), and that had some horrendous results, in particular for the weakest in society such as those sent to industrial schools where they were preyed upon by clerical and lay pedophiles, the very people who were supposed to be looking after their welfare.

If however Ireland was/is such a horrible place, then why is it consistently rated as one of the top countries in the world to live in (often ranked #1), and in particular one of the best countries in the world to raise children? If the RCC has had such a poisoning influence on the country, how could this be? I know dozens of people who have left the US where I live and moved to Ireland over the past few decades either on short term appointments (1-2 years) or permanently and they absolutely love the place. The religious aspects of schools does not bother them in the slightest. I am unsure of what you mean by the role of the RCC in the health system, perhaps you can elaborate. Are doctors under some sort of mandate by the RCC or are you referring specifically to the abortion issue?

To say that the RCC on balance has done most damage to Ireland is imo complete hyperbole and a view that I suspect only atheists in Ireland hold. Are they the reason that 200,000 people have emigrated from Ireland since 2008?, to blame for one of the highest rates of suicide among young people in Europe?, to blame for more and more families relying on welfare and charity? to blame for the escalating crime rate and in particular violent crime rate? I don't think so marienbad, they are certainly not blameless, but the most serious economic, social and political issues facing Ireland are not due to the RCC.

Might I ask, if it is not too intrusive, did you grow up in Ireland ?

Firstly, nobody would say that the vast majority of U.S democrats are liberals therefore all democrats are liberal. Secondly, it's ridiculous to suggest because there are atheist ideologies atheism is itself an ideology. Theism, by itself, isn't an ideology either. And, it beyond arrogance to suggest that people should be lumped into categories that they don't identify with. You don't throw all Christians into the same group as the Phelps family because that's not Christianity. Just because Atheist Ireland is an organisation doesn't mean atheists are those defined by adherence to organisations. Population should have no bearing here. If 99.9999999% of the world was atheist and supports of atheist Ireland it still doesn't mean atheism is by itself an ideology. Atheism with other things tacked on becomes an ideology. But atheism and theism by themselves are not ideologies. Regardless of how many people hold either belief.

nagirrac wrote: »

Science, and reason for that matter, are completely silent in trying to deal with the paradoxes of the human condition, and throughout human history religious ritual and belief is how we have confronted for example despair and grief.

I do not agree. I find that science and reason are more and more being brought to bear on the human condition. From using science to throw light on subjects like morality, to even asking questions about what things like "to believe" even mean at the level of the brain.

And we do look at things like grief in scientific ways and through the methodologies of things similar to epidemiology. We study the ways we address and deal with things like grief and observe which methods are best and which are worst.

For example when recent natural disasters hit the US, child psychologists were air lifted into the zone literally on day one to deal with children who had lost their parents. Rather than waiting, they ensured there were boots on the ground from day 1. Why? Because our studies and methods have long taught us that grief counselling is more effective when implemented right from the start.

Our science and reason and studies taught us that and we used that knowledge to funnel relief resources and funds into day 1 counselling because we have learned this is the most effective method. We make very real world decisions and directives based on our learnings in these fields.

What we have never learned, seemingly, is that the right thing to do is stave off grief by lying to children about unsubstantiated notions like after lives, reincarnation, or any notion that their lost parents are not actually dead but are off looking down on them somewhere.

nagirrac wrote: »

it is the search for meaning in our existence.

Perhaps, but such a search presupposes there even IS a "meaning" to be found. An idea there is to date no reason to lend credence to. We just are. And that is a state we might do well to explore and confront and understand the implications of rather than building myth, or "mythos" around in order to dress up all pretty and palatable.

You assert, rather than argue, that it might have been important historically for the survival of our species. I see nothing to base that on but even if we grant it as 100% true... that in no way defends it here and today. Children use imagination and fantasy when growing up, but they grow out of it. Even if you are right with your assertions that we needed such things in the infancy of our species... and I have my doubts.... then perhaps we could do with growing out of it now under the hammer blows of modernity.

nagirrac wrote: »

By the same logic theism is not an ideology, as theism simply states that at least one God exists

To be pedantic, that would be more Deism you just defined. Not Theism. Theism is Deism+. It presupposes the position of Deism that at least one god exists, and then goes on to act like we know how this god wants us to live our lives.

nagirrac wrote: »

However, in reality, "lack of belief" is a very poor simplistic definition and tells us close to nothing about what a person believes.

This I can agree on and is in fact why I do not personally identify myself as "atheist" except when I simply require a quick term in a piece of much longer prose. I simply do not call myself "atheist". That is a word other people call me such as theists who simply want to define me as "Not one of us".

Atheism is not an ideology, my ideology, or a world view. I have world views, some of which have their own labels, and they do not lead me to the belief that there is a god. A fact that people then use "atheist" as a label to identify for reasons and agendas of their own.

I prefer to talk about who and what I am. Not who and what I am not. I AM someone who required evidence, argument, data and reasoning to compel me to believe something. In the absence of that I simply do not believe the claim. My lack of belief in that claim is not itself a world view or ideology, but the RESULT of my world view. Too many people conflate, often willfully, the result of a world view with the world view itself or AS a world view itself.

And given there is, to date, no evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer that even BEGINS to lend credence to the idea there is a god... then "atheism" for me is not a world view or ideology.... but the result of the world view / ideology that believing things on insufficient... or in this case entirely and completely absent.... substantiation is likely not a good approach to life.

nozzferrahhtoo is right, theism is God revealed, if it's just a presumption that an indifferent God exists that we can't know then it's just deism.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The difference between strong atheists and weak atheists is the percentage the ascribe to the possibility of there being a god, if that percentage is 0% then you're strong atheist, if it is >0% then you're weak.

That criteria is interesting.

For me there is absolutely no chance at all of the Christian God, or any god of any other organised religion existing. A total 0% possibility. So I am a very strong athiest when it comes to existing organised religion. An absolute atheist. But more agnostic when it comes to the question "is there any possibility of a 'higher power'".

nagirrac wrote: »

That's a very reasonable position to take. I think we have to look at all religion, whether organized or not, as a human attempt to answer questions like why do "I" exist, what is this universe I find myself in, where and how and why did it originate, what is my place in it and how should I live my life. These are age old questions which lead to philosophy mainly based on reason and religion mainly based on faith. Religions to me just represent what various cultures came up with at various times in history to attempt to describe a divine origin to the universe and to answer the above questions. Some are rather simplistic (sun worship) and some highly sophisticated (some strands of Buddhism). If we make the assumption that a "higher power" exists, none of them in all likelihood are even remotely descriptive of what this higher power is like.

The existence of a higher power cannot be either proven or disproven, so I am not prepared to take a position on the existence or non existence of same. If there is such a thing, we have no reason to assume knowledge of its motives or emotions. I agree that religions exist and were/are invented as a means of interpretation of unexplained phenomena. I find it difficult to understand why the interpretations of people with comparitively primitive knowledge and understanding, who lived several thousand years ago, can remain relevant to so many people today. With the development of scientific knowledge, many of the interpretations of phenomena that our predecessors believed to be true have been disproven in so many areas, many from much more recently than biblical times. During biblical times what was the understanding of mental illness for example (talking burning bush)? Was Jesus altogether well? Believing one is god or has special powers is a very common symptom of both psychosis and the manic phase of bipolar. Or perhaps he was brought up indoctrinated that he was the son of god due to his parents circumstances at his birth. Medicine was exceptionally primitive, nearly non existent compared to today. What were they like at assessing death accurately? I am referring here to the Christian resurrection story. Likely they were not very good at it if bells were attached to graves as late as the 19th century. It will probably be considered highly offensive if I give my favourite alternate theory for the 'virgin birth' in this forum. Biblical times were another world compared to our understandings today, and still we don't understand most things. I personally feel no drive to know why we are here and what happens after we die. It would be interesting to know, but dosn't really matter to me. As far as how to live one's life, the only real way to measure that is to look at how we treat other humans, animals and the environment. Ethics in other words. Religion has certainly got a lot wrong in regard to how people should treat one another, and continues to do so.

nagirrac wrote: »

The thing to base it on is evolution and specifically natural selection. There appears little doubt in the scientific community that religion originated very early in the history of homo sapiens

I would not argue with that at all. But that does not evidence the assertion that it was required for our survival or that it has, or had, any utility at all. The Common Cold also likely originated very early in the history of our species. Likely earlier than religion did. That in no way means the Common Cold is a required or useful trait.

There is a common misconception in the lay man to Evolution that a trait or attribute that arose early and/or remained constant is therefore a useful or necessary one. Or must confer some kind of selective advantage. It is not always so, and certainly no where near as often so as many lay people believe.

So no, pointing out it arrived early, remained constant, or showed up as a feature in many, most, or even all cultures in no way supports the assertion that it was a required trait or conferred selective advantage. Much more has to be done to back up such an assertion. Otherwise, as I said, you would also be arguing the Common Cold is a selectively advantageous and necessary trait too.

nagirrac wrote: »

the fact that religion has survived for so long means it had to survive selective pressure in a very wide range of environments/cultures

Yes, exactly. IT has to survive the selective pressures. Just like the Common Cold. That in no way suggests it was a useful trait, or conferred any selective advantage on the host(s) or the culture(s) it arose in. It is an error to conflate the two, but as I said a common lay man error to make and I can see why so many make it.

nagirrac wrote: »

so the only two plausible reasons we know of at present are that it itself provided an evolutionary advantage or that it is a by product of something else that provided an evolutionary advantage

Or a combination of the two. However my feeling would be the latter option is the more likely.... or if it is a combination then the more dominant.

nagirrac wrote: »

although the evidence from so many independent cultures suggests to me at least the former rather than the latter

Which as I said above would appear to be your main error. Arising in many, or even all, different cultures in no way evidences it is the former rather than the latter. Again ref: the common cold.

We are already a social species and religion is in no way required to serve as the bonding force there or to "link humans to communities". Rather, religion is likely a by product effect of our already existing need to form such social communities.

nagirrac wrote: »

To say that religion is now past its sell by date and we should be growing out of it is an interesting proposition.

And a pretty obvious one. One need only ask oneself if religion confers any utility or good that could not be achieved perfectly well without it. I can think of no such attribute. Every "good" people ascribe to religion, either correctly or incorrectly, in no way requires religion at all. See for example the above posts about putting the good of others before oneself.

So if religion is entirely superfluous to any requirements then even ONE SINGLE negative effect is enough to place it in negative equity of utility and harm. And I think we both know that we can list a hell of a lot of negative effects here.

So if X has no single useful attribute and even one, let alone many, negative ones.... then I very much do feel we would be better off without X, whatever X may be.

nagirrac wrote: »

it is unlikely humans will cease looking for meaning in their lives, so religion will be around in some form or another.

Agreed. Humans will continue such a search. And many do. But we can do so without requiring subscribing to notions on insufficient, or in the case of the subject of this thread entirely absent, evidence. And we would be likely redefining the word "religion" heavily to match your proposition above. To the point I wonder if there is any utility in holding on to the word at all given the metaphysical baggage it comes with.

Sam Harris is the most prolific writer on this subject out of the known atheist writers. In fact his use of the word "spirituality" and exploration of same causes some consternation among the atheist community until they actually sit down and unpack what it is he is actually saying and claiming. At which point they realize that they very much agree with him and, given what you just wrote in the quote above, so do you. As do I.

Alas "religion" and "spirituality" are the words we have for such quests and searches at this time. No one has managed to disseminate a better one yet. But it is abundantly clear that what you, I and Harris are actually talking about when we use those words in that context is VERY different to what we are talking about in the context of "Religion" on THIS thread. We risk having two very different, and very useful, conversations under the confusing banner of one single word.

For the context of THIS thread when I say "Religion" I mean the position of thinking there is a god, thinking we know its moral opinions or desires for how we live our life, and thinking we should demur to that. It is after all a thread about the existence of god.

That people want to explore the meaning of simply being human and what that means for them and how they live their lives, doing so without espousing or subscribing to entirely unsubstantiated ideas, is entirely agreed and for me is not "religion" as it is meant in the context of THIS thread.

georgesstreet wrote: »

It also might be helpful and add some perspective to realise that the current christian god is only one of many gods worshipped by humans in 2013

Indeed. Maybe my post would read better if I made it clearer that I did not mean the Christian God specifically.... but any notion of a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.

When we get specific about any one god in particular then the reasons for discrediting the existence of such a god become more numerous. Some peoples definition of god are, for example, as self contradictory as a "married bachelor". Those gods very clearly do not exist because their very definition precludes it.

In a debate between Dan Barker and the unfortunately named theist Kyle Butt, Barker lists at length many of the contradictions in the christian god that suggest that such a god simply does not exist. As such the mantra of "You can not prove OR disprove the existence of my god" blows up like magician flash paper.

The mantra however does apply to the vague notion of a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe and it is there that I feel we can take a position. Not a 100% position against the existence of such a "god" but certainly one a lot stronger than a "We have no evidence either way therefore I can not take a position at all" type position I think.

nagirrac wrote: »

Oh deary me, as Alex Ferguson would say.

First of all I'm not a layperson, but let's not dwell on that.
Where to start. The common cold is not inherited, it is a virus that originates in nature and when it encounters a human in close enough proximity to invade the cells of said human, tends to live and multiply within human cells. What has evolved in humans is a response to the common cold, called antibodies, just like the immunity we have built up over millions of years to a whole host of foreign organisms. Viruses and bacteria mutate however, so our response mechanisms have to continually also mutate to overcome these alien invaders. Adapted immune response to the common cold virus is obviously advantageous and would be retained.

If you want to make an analogy with disease, a better one in this discussion is a human culture that had no prior exposure to a particular pathogen and had never evolved any resistance to it e.g. it is estimated that 95% of the native people of North and South America were wiped out by diseases carried there by European settlers. They had no resistance to these diseases because they had never been exposed to them before.

My point about religion is it emerged in a variety of cultures that were completely cut off from each other and survived in these cultures for thousands of years (native Americans, northern Europeans, aboriginal people in Australia (possibly cut off from any contact with other humans for 50,000 years), etc. There is little point in you and I arguing whether religion was selected for and retained because it was 1) a favorable adaptation, or 2) as a by product, as science has reached no consensus on this question at all, the evidence just is not strong enough yet to support one view over the other. As with most discussions between us though, how we view the evidence is filtered by our personal bias. You regard religion as a great evil so it has to be an unfortunate byproduct, and I regard it as foundational to humans developing aspects of their culture that conveyed advantages leading to the survival of the species.

We are in close agreement on the definition of and role of "religion" today.

In that case - how about slavery ? just as old as religion

nagirrac wrote: »

There are many kinds of slavery, just like many forms of religion, and as you say it is very old, not sure about old as religion, were hunter gatherers slave owners?. Some forms are fairly benign, some are horrible, all have to be considered in the context of the time they occurred.

Slavery as in the exchange of labor for say food and shelter which existed in many cultures, including Ireland up to recently (farm laborers) is pretty benign, slavery as in ownership of another human, and the ability to trade humans is despicable. The current human trafficking in sex slaves, and in particular child sex slaves, is just simply appalling. I simply cannot understand why countries that tolerate this within their borders are not ostracized and banned from economic trading until they crack down on it, but I suppose that would harm the tourism industry.

Can I take it then that our 'evolution' away from slavery ,in all its form,is a good thing ?

Thank God I'm an Atheist.

nagirrac wrote: »

First of all I'm not a layperson, but let's not dwell on that.

I have my doubts and I can only go by what I have observed which suggests otherwise.

nagirrac wrote: »

Where to start. The common cold is not inherited

Nor is religion so you are making my point for me. The point, again, is that just because religion arose early, frequently and/or persists.... none of this in any way supports the argument that it is therefore a necessary or useful trait. You would have a lot more work to do to evidence such an assertion.

Viruses are just genetic information that use human hosts to reproduce and disseminate. As you point out they mutate and evolve too, in order to overcome our evolution against them which would otherwise wipe them out.

Religions are just memetic information that use human hosts to reproduce and disseminate. They too change and mutate and evolve over time in response to aspects of humans and human civilization that would otherwise wipe them out.

So the reason for my analogy should be clear, however as usual the analogy is not the point and you as usual choose to attack the analogy rather than the point. The point, once again, is that if you want to argue that religion was somehow useful... or even _necessary_.... during our early evolution and survival then you have a lot more work to do than simply pointing out it arose early and persisted.

nagirrac wrote: »

My point about religion is it emerged in a variety of cultures that were completely cut off from each other and survived in these cultures for thousands of years (native Americans, northern Europeans, aboriginal people in Australia (possibly cut off from any contact with other humans for 50,000 years), etc.

I am aware of your point thanks. My counter point is that so do viruses. They too arise in culture completely cut off from each other. The point of the analogy, which you appear to miss in your desperation to attack the analogy itself, is to support the byproduct aspect of religion.

Viruses continue to arise even in isolated groups because aspects of human biology leave it open to that. Things that evolved for other reasons leave us open to and prone to infection by bacteria and viruses because they evolved in response to take advantage of those useful traits in us.

Similarly aspects of the human condition that have evolved for other good reasons.... such as the intentional stance, agency detection, and much more.... leave us prone to memetic infection from superstition and belief in deities. There are very genuinely useful aspects to our biology and psychology which have evolved but have the side effect of leaving us prone to infection by such unsubstantiated, nonsense, but emotionally compelling ideas.

There are very good biological and psychological reasons for why the average brain goes around thinking there might be a god even though in reality there is not even an iota of a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support such a claim or even lend it a modicum of credibility.