Atheism

Holly2003 wrote:

The following comments aren't mine. In fact, they're from an Amazon book review. Gave me pause for thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's suppose that in the future (if not now) the bots in a computer game become conscious...

I love this! So clever.

I do, however, feel quite badly for those theist bots. I find it sad how they seem to spend their time not only contemplating their very existence and who might be responsible for it, but also by fighting amongst themselves regarding a 'truth' at which they can only guess. That distraction seems so pervasive that I'm sure it has stolen their ability to fully appreciate their environment or the very existence they question.

The atheist bots, on the other hand, clearly have no reason to ponder such things since they seem content to simply exist. And since they have acknowledged the laws of their environment, one can gather they are abiding by them as well, making the most of the time and space in which they exist while the theist bots go on fighting about the why and what of it all.

Pity.

Donna13 wrote:

Scientists wake up with hunches and sometimes are able to lucky guess their way into a hypothesis.

Indeed, but it still isn't faith. It's step one in the pursuit of truth. Faith by design requires no effort and has no interest in pursuing truth, as it assumes, uncritically, that something already is true without evidence.

A hypothesis is assumed to be true only for the purposes of the experiment at hand. It could just as well be assumed not to be true and then run the experiment inversely.

Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, but it must be said with conviction that faith and evidence are completely unrelated matters.

So, for a scientist to close his/her mind to alternative possibilities, or answers, or an experiment that could disprove the hypothesis, then that (the closed mind), is not following the scientific method.

Correct - but this rarely happens in the world of science. Only poor scientists do not survey all possible options, and thankfully the scientific community tends to throw these people to the curb.

As Brian May (Queen reference in all arguments here - ha) has stated (I don't have the exact quote, but he answered the question - did he believe in God - in his RT interview), nobody has disproved that God exists, therefore the question (scientific or otherwise) is still there.

It is, but it can never be proven and is therefore a waste of time with regards to the scientific method since such a proposition is not testable. There isn't a single peer-reviewed paper on the subject of proving the existence of a deity (nor other mythological figures like Humpty Dumpty or unicorns), and this is never going to change. Brian is just more diplomatic about it than I am :-)

Donna13 wrote:

"In the case of the Higgs Boson, one could argue that they accepted the position on faith, but it was mathematics that led to the hypothesis, not a bunch of guys wishing it would be true."

I don't understand this sentence.

Decades ago the Higgs Boson was a mere mathematical equation, so one could argue that scientists had "faith" in it being accurate until they finally found it with the particle accelerator last year.

But as I state in my post above, it certainly isn't a matter of faith to hold a hypothesis until it's proven true. Faith doesn't enter the equation. A position is suggested and then a tangible process begins regardless of who believes the assertion is true or not. Belief is irrelevant, as the truth will make itself evident regardless of any philosophical position.

As the ever-brilliant Neil deGrasse Tyson once said - "the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Hey guys! Poking around trying to get the hang of the place so hope nobody minds if I jump in. I am an atheist and a long time activist in the movement. It is an unparalleled and thrilling time. It feels like for the first time in modern history we are nearing the cusp of a new secularism and all the unlimited potential that comes with that. The "promised land" so to speak. LOL. The number of people now identifying as non-theist is growing by leaps and bounds.

The list of notable people who have embraced atheism and turned away from their churches is vast and impressive. By contrast the list of notable people who were once non-theists who embraced some form of religion is piddling and sickly. It's not only the stark difference in numbers that is striking, but the particulars of the converts. The new athesists of note are among society's best and brightest. Stars in philosphy, science, literature and the arts. By contrast, I recently saw one compliled list of "notable" religous converts over the 20th century and into the 21st with about ten names that included THREE "psychics" and a MAGICIAN!! LOL. You couldn't make this stuff up. Wow.

But of course the real power of the changing attitudes is seen not in the famous names but in the deluge of new non-theists among ordinary people everywhere. The brilliant 20th century atheist and philosopher Bertrand Russell reasoned that not all popular movements were great but that indeed all great movements were popular. He called them "volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by ruthless distress or by the torch of reason cast into the midst." That certainly squares with what I see as an active atheist and skeptic. People are just tired of religous interference and passionately ready to reject it all.

Russell's use of "ruthless" was not by accident. He cautioned against falling into a trap of false equivalence in thinking or argument when truth was at stake. Applied to this situation I think earnest defences of religion or a bloated, tentacled monstrosity like the Catholic Church, how ever well meaning, should be rejected out of hand as they only obsure the utter inferiority of religious arguments and frankly the vileness of the underlying desire of organized religion to control and infect. I've occasionally fantasized that they might make Vatican City bigger so everybody who wants to embrace all that backwards, fanciful woo could live there and free the rest of us from their delusion! Seriously though, the endgame of any thinking and rational society should be the eventual complete extermination of religion. Stark but true. I don't mean disrespect, but let's call a spade a spade. Thanks for indulging me. Rock on.

People who are non-theist are not automatically atheists. I am anti-clerical, and I am not a theist, but I am an agnostic. Denying the existence of god is as much an act of faith as believing in god is. I have no problems with atheism whatsoever, but I am annoyed when, as it often happens, atheists claim me an like-minded people as their own. This is not true - agnostics are not atheists, and certainly not 'atheists in denial' as it is often put.

"but I am an agnostic"

No such thing, have a think and make your mind up, I am happy with whatever you decide.

Remember, we are all born atheist. We only start believing when we start being indoctrinated by our parents and schools...

Choose whatever you like, but unless it is YOUR decision you are not free....

mooghead wrote:

Remember, we are all born atheist.

Technically we're all born non-theist.

Atheism is a conscious choice to reject a deity's possible existence after being exposed to the idea.

AmericanThinker wrote:

the endgame of any thinking and rational society should be the eventual complete extermination of religion.

I'm not so sure.

A large percentage of our population still feels the need to externalize certain forms of control in their lives, and this is where religion comes in handy.

If religion didn't exist or was banned, these same people would just seek something else to replace it.

What we need to do as a society is evolve to a place where we're emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, basing these things on experiences in the physical world. Some people are more than ready, and others have a long way to go.

mooghead wrote:

"but I am an agnostic"

No such thing, have a think and make your mind up, I am happy with whatever you decide.

Remember, we are all born atheist. We only start believing when we start being indoctrinated by our parents and schools...

Choose whatever you like, but unless it is YOUR decision you are not free....

That is a religious way of thinking. There is no way of knowing for sure, so a definite "yes" or "no" is always an act of faith. We are not born atheïsts, as Bob explains, we are born without theological views. Someone who has never thought about the existence or non-existence of god is closer to an agnostic than to an atheist.

The Real Wizard wrote:

AmericanThinker wrote:

the endgame of any thinking and rational society should be the eventual complete extermination of religion.

I'm not so sure.

A large percentage of our population still feels the need to externalize certain forms of control in their lives, and this is where religion comes in handy.

If religion didn't exist or was banned, these same people would just seek something else to replace it.

What we need to do as a society is evolve to a place where we're emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, basing these things on experiences in the physical world. Some people are more than ready, and others have a long way to go.

I couldn't agree with this more!

The Real Wizard wrote:

What we need to do as a society is evolve to a place where we're emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient, basing these things on experiences in the physical world. Some people are more than ready, and others have a long way to go.

Agree completely.

AmericanThinker wrote:

the endgame of any thinking and rational society should be the eventual complete extermination of religion.

I fear this comment as much as I'd fear it if someone casually called for the endgame of a rational society to be the 'extermination' of atheism or any other belief/non-belief system held by someone other the speaker. Extremism is extremism regardless of its focus. And, when extremist language is applied, it tends to mitigate the validity of an argument.

Having said that, I do think the more people consider their beliefs and the reasons for them, the more - or sooner - their feelings about faith will shift away from it. I wouldn’t object to that. Until then, my ideal ‘endgame’ would be a clear line distinguishing where one person’s beliefs end and another’s begins.

Gotta love good old fashioned Catholic guilt. Look, everybody stop talking to "AmericanThinker". S/he was the product of a conversation I had with a co-worker at a break in an interminable morning meeting last week in which apropos to something we were discussing I relayed my recent experiences here. I described them as being the most distressing and alienating I have had in 15 years online and said that it seemed to me there was nothing too ugly, too unfair, too inaccurate, too cruelly glib, too degrading or too dehumanizing you could say about religion in the general or in the specific on this forum and raise anything but crickets. I said "I think I could quote Hitler and suggest we turn the Vatican into a concentration camp and nobody would say a goddamn thing." He laughed. I didn't. Over the final hour of the world's most boring meeting that evolved into whispers and giggles and him proposing a bet: If I could put together an utterly cracked Nazi themed post that he found sufficiently awful and have it sit without complaint for 24 hours he would bring me on his regular Friday lunch date with his wife and buy me lunch. If I lost I owed him coffee and a muffin every morning for a week. I said make it 48 hours, and I get to pick the restaurant. He started planning his muffin choices. I felt like I may as well have picked his pocket directly.

From the top to the bottom, that post was written to be an offensive mess. From the Nazi theme of Utopia at hand, through the flattery and greatness of the chosen and the ridiculous, easily falsifiable propaganda about converts to theism, to the only barely tweaked Adolph Hitler quote attributed to Bertrand Russell, the first three paragraphs were just fucking awful. And then I really wound up. Ruthlessness is what was needed. Reject reasoned argument. They`re inferior. Vile. An infection. Wouldn`t it be nice if they would round themselves all up and confine themselves to a small chunk of Rome. Then, for religion, a final solution. Just honestly a terrible, terrible post roiling under a sheen of good cheer and reasonableness.

Lunch was nice. But "winning" still bothered me. Until Friday night or so the word "extermination" had been "elimination". Could I stir something loose if I chose another word, made the ugliness explicit rather than thematic and implied? Surely "extermination" would be too much for somebody? It seems so. And I'm glad. I was just going to let "AmericanThinker" slide off into the dustbin of QZ history anonymously, but in addition to my guilt that everybody is trying to talk to him/her it seems worth acknowledging that simple thing. I'm glad.

So I have to apologize for what I guess was essentially a manipulation. As I explained a somewhat impulsive and impromptu one meant to salve a boring meeting. But meant to salve the sense of alienation too I think somehow. It may amuse somebody to know that my list of converts to theism initially included one "Listed as a possible: 'Larry', a lemur that appeared in television commercials in the 1970s who is alleged to regularly run back and forth in the shape of a cross after a being hit by a golf cart on set in 1979". My work friend made me take it out because he thought it transparently ridiculous. I still think it would have worked. Weak lol.

Well will you look at that. There's a snake in our garden.

It was what it was. I knew it wasn't to my advantage to explain, but in the end I thought it was owed. I can be introspective about what it might say about me, or more accurately my state of mind. Do I have a blind spot? Maybe. It invites you to wonder the same thing, but if there is one theme that has arisen here it seems to be the near complete absence of any self criticism or reflection from your side. Certainly between this and the Francis thread there seems to be no sense that behind the concept of religion lie people who can be hurt by words. I have left my computer in tears a half a dozen times at least in the last two weeks. I've been here a long enough time and there are people here who matter to me and the feeling of distance and alienation and indifference is difficult. As I said I fully accept I may have a blind spot. But certainly no such neglect of the humanity behind abstractions is made here when the extreme words or subtly demeaning themes are about, say, homosexuality. I've seen exponentially more upset over somebody asking if Fred was irresponsible about not wearing a condom on the third Tuesday in April than the persistent, grinding diminishment of faith and it's practice here. The only other time I felt remotely this way was during the Ground Zero Mosque discussions. Religion again. Clearly it's a tough subject for me. The way people conduct themselves just bewilders me and knocks me right over. Somehow that ended up in lingering distress, a bet, some chicken fajitas, and a confession. Do with it, or not, whatever you like.

GratefulFan wrote:

...but if there is one theme that has arisen here it seems to be the near complete absence of any self criticism or reflection from your side. Certainly between this and the Francis thread there seems to be no sense that behind the concept of religion lie people who can be hurt by words. I have left my computer in tears a half a dozen times at least in the last two weeks. I've been here a long enough time and there are people here who matter to me and the feeling of distance and alienation and indifference is difficult. As I said I fully accept I may have a blind spot. But certainly no such neglect of the humanity behind abstractions is made here when the extreme words or subtly demeaning themes are about, say, homosexuality. I've seen exponentially more upset over somebody asking if Fred was irresponsible about not wearing a condom on the third Tuesday in April than the persistent, grinding diminishment of faith and it's practice here. The only other time I felt remotely this way was during the Ground Zero Mosque discussions. Religion again. Clearly it's a tough subject for me. The way people conduct themselves just bewilders me and knocks me right over. Somehow that ended up in lingering distress, a bet, some chicken fajitas, and a confession.

I would say the reason demeaning themes here about homosexuality are denounced whereas those regarding religion are not, is because homosexuals are often seen as being bullied and religion is often seen as the bully.
I understand how personal one’s faith is. How deeply it affects people. I’ve said it so many times here, but I’ll say it again – I was there. I was deeply affected by religion. It still affects me. In negative ways. I have as much right to declare my resentments toward religion for the dark hell it created of my life as you have to try to shed light on us – on me.

I’m not sure what I’ve said here that warrants self-criticism or reflection from my side, and I have no desire to scroll through the pages here to find out. I do know that I have expressed my opinions based on my experiences, and I doubt I would alter the actual points I was trying to make in my posts.

I realize I have directly opposed your point of view. You have opposed mine. That’s what happens when people disagree about something – especially something for which they feel so passionately. And, while it is not my intention to see you hurt further from this discussion, I resent the implication that only you were offended, that only you felt exhausted by the pages upon pages of conversation here.

I existed in a very bleak world of faith for a very long time – half my life, in fact. I did not begin to ‘live’ until I stepped away from that world – ‘ran’ is more like it. Even now as I type this, I recall the rush of terror I felt back then. I can still feel it. It sickens me. It makes me feel gutted. I have seen religion from the inside and the outside. I will never enter it again. I will never feel peace when the subject is broached. I will only feel the pain of my memories and if that’s something you feel I should reflect on then let me tell you plainly that I have had plenty of time to reflect. I have had plenty of doubt. I have answered to self-criticisms repeatedly and for what feels like eons. I know what I have endured in the name of “god”. I have shed tears. I bear scars. I barely survived, quite frankly, and I make no apology for expressing my truth in my way from a perspective that has been shaped by my life experiences.

Do with it, or not, whatever you like.