How many here are atheists?

[Puke]

Hi, my names Cyro and I'm a godless evil bastard.

Huzzah!

[ReverendRyan]

Did I miss something that addressed my relatively simple and straight forward points that, unlike the response, don't actually require the reader to study philosophy for "perhaps a lifetime" to understand?

If I'm not mistaken, this was the gist of Caleb's response (the trump card, ultimately, for every theist):

we all have to make a leap of faith

In other words, "I don't yet fully grasp the nature and causes of the universe, so I will believe anything that strikes my fancy."

There are various concepts of faith which have different connotations. In the American Heritage Dictionary, the first two definitions are:

   1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
   2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Both are legitimate definitions in a discussion, but the confusion between the two definitions often leads to the use of the equivocation fallacy among those who wish to assert that atheism is based on faith.

The Bible clearly adopts the second definition in Hebrews 11:1, which says: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Mark Twain also created a classic definition in his book, Pudd'nhead Wilson: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Many atheists regard faith as the act of coming to a conclusion first, and then filtering the facts to match your expectations. In a sense, this is the opposite of science.




A number of arguments exist in defense of faith:

1. Faith is a virtue: Faith is something to be desired, in and of itself.

The idea that premises should be accepted without evidence and that the premise is better without evidence can be used to justify any claim. One could just as easily believe that God wants you to love your neighbors as you could that God wants you to kill them for working on the Sabbath. For example, faith is often used as a justification for suicide bombers.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." – Voltaire

"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." – Dan Barker

"A casual stroll through an insane asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." – Friedrich Nietzsche

2. People have faith in other things — wind, love, quantum mechanics — without people questioning them.

Wind demonstrably exists. Beyond secondary effects and weather such as tornadoes and hurricanes, we also have wind turbines which harness wind power into electrical power.

Love demonstrably exists. We actually feel love. We can easily witness the change in behavior people display while in love. We can measure the neurotransmitters in the brain. We can observe the brain changes via MRI machines.

The ideas of quantum mechanics demonstrably work. We use quantum mechanics in everything from cell phones to laptop computers, and have measured quantum phenomenon to "a degree equal to measuring the width of the United States to the width of a human hair." If God were understood as well as quantum mechanics, we would have already miniaturized him and put him in a device to carry around on our wrists.

3. Faith is trust

Faith is not trust. Trust is generally justified. Appeals to faith would be unneeded if the faith were justified initially.

This is equivocation. Comparing my belief that "my family will not murder me during the night" with believing in "unjustified, unevidenced religious claims" is simply equating the two words when they do not properly equate. Attempting to justify religious faith by appealing to a more justifiable claim, which is itself justified by evidence and reason, and ignoring the justification in order to assume no justification is needed, is not a cogent argument.



Rather than directly justify faith, often arguments will defend the belief in belief. That though, faith may not be itself justified, faith is itself useful. These arguments are largely irrelevant to the question at hand. Sam Harris addresses these argument by comparing the argument that "faith brings comfort" and "faith gives purpose to people's lives" to the claim that "I have a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard". Such a belief could provide a person with purpose, and could be a comforting thought, just as it could give their life meaning. However, none of this has anything to do with the truth of the statement.

[dalebert]

Hi, my names Cyro and I'm a godless evil bastard.

What brings you to this side of town, Cyro?

[dalebert]

math is God

[Cyro]

Hi, my names Cyro and I'm a godless evil bastard.

What brings you to this side of town, Cyro?

Boredom, more or less. The FTLBBS has been pretty stagnant lately.

[Caleb]

I almost wish you hadn't posted that because it clarified why these responses have me feeling insulted. What I said was quite a bit more significant than "nuh uh". I explained in straight forward terms, in a few paragraphs, what is logically inconsistent and intuitively unbelievable about a perfect, infinite being that pre-exists the universe and yet has human qualities like consciousness, free will, and ability to love, and the responses were nothing but obfuscation like you'd hear from a defense lawyer, totally unrelated to the points I made. Did I miss something that addressed my relatively simple and straight forward points that, unlike the response, don't actually require the reader to study philosophy for "perhaps a lifetime" to understand? It's condescending and dismissive. But whatever.

My point was simply this, Dale, and maybe I should shut up because people keep feeling insulted when I'm not intending to insult them:

My point is that if a person decides that his philosophical position is skepticism, he's basically choosing to take no position. And that isn't a philosophy, because a philosophy tells us something about our world, (or at least attempts to) whereas skepticism is basically saying what the world is not.  So let's take a non-controversial topic here. Let's take the question, "Is the Universe eternal?" So one camp takes one side, and the other camp takes the other. Both have answered the question in their own way, but the third participant, the skeptic, doesn't answer the question, he merely points to the weaknesses of the arguments of both sides.

And here's another point, Dale, which is really where I hope to end up here:  Skepticism isn't possible in real life. Take a look at it this way. Imagine Ayn Rand in a philosophical discussion with Hegel (ignore for the moment that they weren't contemporaries.) Both would be skeptical of the other's viewpoint. That's not because each was unbiased, but only because they each are proponents of their own particular philosophy, to the exclusion of other philosophies. Now, Rand and Hegel were both critical thinkers who had examined their philosophies in great detail, so they would have a reason for each answer to each question. While none of us have likely given that level of thought to our underlying philosophical assumptions, we all have them. It isn't possible to live life without a worldview, because we must have some lens through which to view the world and our experiences. If we have examined these assumptions, the hope is that they are less arbitrary. "The unexamined life isn't worth living" and all that. But even if a person was born in a cave somewhere, and had never heard of philosophy, he still has a worldview. It's just probably one that he hasn't given much thought to. Only a person without a worldview could lay claim to being a genuine skeptic. And those people don't exist. Each of us are skeptical of the claims of other worldviews where they differ from our own.

As for what you've "missed" (to quote you) I just think that you see the world very different from me. My answers must seem strange to you, but your questions seem strange to me. If I applied the same standard of reason to time and existence as you apply to the concept of God, I should be moved to conclude that time and existence are not possible. When you bring up a paradox with regard to God, you view that as proof that he doesn't exist. Like I said, if I applied the same conclusions to time for instance, I should be moved to conclude that time doesn't exist. Clearly time exists. So I view the paradox as showing nothing about God, merely that paradox is exactly what one should expect when a finite person attempts to actually comprehend the infinite. Sorry for the  simplification, but you see paradox, and you say, "Aha, paradox! Thus God can't exist." I see paradox, and I say, "Aha, paradox! Thus I have encountered infinity."

I also feel that you misunderstand the whole thrust of what I have been saying.

OK, we've gone from something I can receive if I'm just receptive to it to "a time consuming process to say the least that could easily take a lifetime"

I have tried to sketch for you a line of how I have tried to make sense of my world. I start with experience, which to me is foundational. Then, I try to make sense of experience. The experience is what I say that a person can experience.

Making sense of it afterwards is a lifetime project. My views are not the same now as they were even a year ago. I will continue to refine them. You seem to want something that can be put down on paper and analyzed. I have tried to begin meeting you halfway, by gradually showing my philosophical approach, if that is what you want. What I said last year was that a person could do that, but that it wouldn't be convincing to other people, because the experience is the more emotionally powerful part. Philosophy is fraught, at every turn, with qualifications, exceptions, and possibilities. It doesn't render any certainty, only "this is the best that I can do." But that seems to be where you and others want to go. If you think you would benefit from such a discussion, we can have it, but my last question, "But is there really a whole lot to be gained here?" was a sincere one. If you are happy with your beliefs, and I am happy with mine, what are we seeking to accomplish? Philosophy can be fun. I love philosophy and discussing things for the sake of learning and expanding my own horizons. And if that's what you really want, we can discuss it. But just be aware that it also isn't a real quick thing either. And frankly, at this point, I've rewritten this little thing like five times because emotions seem to be running high and I don't want to offend. I keep deleting lines and rephrasing things. I feel like Menno.  I'm used to speaking off the cuff, so this isn't exactly fun cause it makes me feel that people that I consider friends are feeling sad and irritated about things that I say. And everyone has gotten so hypersensitive (I include myself in this, by the way,) because of the feeling that probably everyone has that the others feel superior. So at this point, I just feel weary of it. Like I said, philosophy can be fun, and if it can be discussed in a way where everyone feels like they are benefiting and expanding their horizons, then it's productive. But when people walk away feeling bad and defensive, then it seems the opposite of good. (we'll leave the question of what the opposite of good is to the philosophy debate.  ). Those are my thoughts.

My point in entering this thread was not to convert anyone. Whether you believe me or not. I started my contribution with a fig leaf to the atheists, quoting Jefferson, "it does me no injury ..." and asking Kola what the point was whether anyone is an atheist or not. Everyone could have taken that approach, but then Vitruvian starts in with his patronizing schtick, and that's what gets under my skin. You may not realize it as such, but the approach "if you don't believe this, you are stupid" is intellectual intimidation. And it irritates me. So yeah, I probably jumped in when I didn't really want to. But to be honest, I'll do it every time. When people make their little insulting one-liners that basically imply, "people who believe in God are stupid," I'm going to jump in and call them on it. 

[Caleb]

But skepticism isn't a philosophy. It's an anti-philosophy. Sort of akin to the guy who says, "nuh uh". Don't get me wrong, there's a certain perverse appeal to nihilism. Hey. If you're going to be a skeptic, go all the way, right. 

This is extremely insulting. What kind of meaning does adding another consciousness, another layer of complexity to existence create? The existentialist dilemma remains. God does not speak to us and tell us what life means or why we are here. We have to figure that out, we have to create that meaning, ourselves. Your transcendent experience, what ever you make of it, happens inside your head (apologies to Dalebert) and is no more proof of a deity than it suggests you may have a brain tumor. Why a story about some dude in the clouds or a pervasive "presence," or the "Force," or whatever "god" is lately helps you or anyone, I do not know, but rejecting that story does not a nihilist make, nor does being skeptical about such claims. Atheists DO have values, most are the most introspective, morally aware persons I have ever known, since they must build their philosophy from the ground up rather than have it handed to them from the pulpit, and we are generally skeptical in the scientific sense, not in some paralyzing Cartesian "brain in a box" way that even rejects the evidence of the senses. We can test whether or not you have a brain tumor, but we can't ever hear the voice of God in your noggin. Well, yet, anyway. I suspect when we can, it'll look suspiciously like abnormal brain activity... of course the theist says "the lord moves in mysterious ways." And we're back where we started.

Ok, I'll ignore the personal insults and get to the crux of your points.

I don't know exactly where you get the idea that I was attacking existentialism? If you are an existentialist, then we probably have much more in common than you seem to have imagined. I also have never attacked nihilism. I wasn't using nihilism as a pejorative, merely that I see it as the base of existentialism, prior to the "final experience." But what must be acknowledged is that the existential application of meaning is arbitrary, so your statement that "we have to create that meaning ourselves", while true to existentialism of course, is also a leap of faith. By that I mean, who is to say that there is any meaning? The existentialist must presume meaning, and then create it. But that presumption of meaning is arbitrary.

I have never claimed that an atheist doesn't have values or morals. You seem to have pulled an accusation out of the air and attributed it to me. I would agree with you that most atheists are highly moral people. That is not at issue.

[Caleb]

A quick note on my use of "faith" in these discussions.

Faith is a word I try to steer away from, for precisely the reasons Ryan mentioned.  I prefer to distinguish between faith and credulity.

I take it as self-evident that all thought eventually builds from certain unprovable axioms. "Faith" as I see it is the acceptance of axioms or premises, which must be done in order to believe anything. It's best not to use the word, because it is fraught with connotations and multiple meanings. Used with existentialism, however, it's very difficult to avoid the word because it is precisely the word that Kierkegard used.

[ReverendRyan]

A quick note on my use of "faith" in these discussions.

Faith is a word I try to steer away from, for precisely the reasons Ryan mentioned.  I prefer to distinguish between faith and credulity.

I take it as self-evident that all thought eventually builds from certain unprovable axioms. "Faith" as I see it is the acceptance of axioms or premises, which must be done in order to believe anything. It's best not to use the word, because it is fraught with connotations and multiple meanings. Used with existentialism, however, it's very difficult to avoid the word because it is precisely the word that Kierkegard used.

That's the thing: any (civil and rational) discussion on religion, faith, etc. turns into a big mess of equivocation.

[Vitruvian]

Everyone could have taken that approach, but then Vitruvian starts in with his patronizing schtick, and that's what gets under my skin.

I asked you an honest question and received no answer.  I listed three mythical figures (Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny), for whose existence there is just as little proof as for God's, and asked what you would think of a mature adult who leaves cookies and milk for the Jolly Fat Man on Christmas Eve.  While not intended to mock, the question was meant to provoke a response of some kind, which had not been forthcoming.

Would you not openly question the intelligence of an adult who maintained a belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny?

[Caleb]

First, let me apologize to you. I wasn't referring to that question, but the first one, something along the lines of "well, let's have a theist define the alleged god." for some reason, it seemed condescending and patronizing to me, which I know wasn't your intent. I am sometimes easily irritated. I am trying to correct that problem.

Now, the second question, the one you quoted above, is unquestionably insulting. It also occurred later in the discussion, when things had already become somewhat heated. I think it is a gross oversimplification, and comparing apples to oranges. For one, you can only say that there is "no evidence" for God by dismissing the evidence of the testimony of countless millions of people who have experienced him. You also have to throw out the idea that there are theoretical constructs of God, where God is deduced using particular reasoning. You may not agree with these reasonings, you may find them specious or faulty, but nonetheless, the belief stems from such a construct. I don't believe in parallel universes, but I don't go around calling people who do "stupid", because although I disagree with their line of reasoning, there is a certain construct under which their beliefs make sense. Starting from certain premises, certain conclusions are almost inevitable. In a way, a question like that sounds to my ears like a trite sound bite, designed to trivialize an inherently complex subject. Kind of like the christian bumper stickers that I sometimes see that say, "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."  The attempt to mock using such a simplistic rationale or a pithy saying when the issues involved are overwhelmingly complex is ... well, not only "tactless" as Dale wants to categorize it, but also in so doing just ends up being completely wrong. It's also a bit of the form, "There are two kinds of people in this world, people who see things the way I do, and idiots."  I don't find that attitude a lot among the most brilliant people I've ever met. I do find it a lot among fundamentalists.

[Free libertarian]

Everyone could have taken that approach, but then Vitruvian starts in with his patronizing schtick, and that's what gets under my skin.

I asked you an honest question and received no answer.  I listed three mythical figures (Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny), for whose existence there is just as little proof as for God's, and asked what you would think of a mature adult who leaves cookies and milk for the Jolly Fat Man on Christmas Eve.  While not intended to mock, the question was meant to provoke a response of some kind, which had not been forthcoming.

Would you not openly question the intelligence of an adult who maintained a belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny?

No evidence of the tooth fairy? C'mon. 40 odd years ago I left a tooth under my pillow and I DID find a dime the next morning. Is this not evidence of the tooth fairy or is it just another indicator of the devaluation of the dollar? I don't think a dime would cut it for todays'  kids huh?

[NJLiberty]

No evidence of the tooth fairy? C'mon. 40 odd years ago I left a tooth under my pillow and I DID find a dime the next morning. Is this not evidence of the tooth fairy or is it just another indicator of the devaluation of the dollar? I don't think a dime would cut it for todays'  kids huh?

And there was the time I got up on Christmas morning to discover sleigh and deer tracks going across my front lawn. I still leave milk and cookies out for Santa. I think the tooth fairy used to bring me dimes as well, which bought a lot of bazooka gum as I recall 

My daughter on the other hand has received quarters for her teeth and she has been thrilled with them. Then again she isn't part of the consumer generation. Her money goes into her piggy bank until she has enough to buy something she really wants, generally books. But you are absolutely right, most kids would turn their noses up at a dime or a quarter.

George

[dalebert]

You have an extremely bizarre take on the word "skeptic" which I specifically defined as simply applying a reasonable level of scrutiny to an idea. I also listed a few specific subjects of which I was a skeptic in regards to, which is to say that they are theories which I do not believe for lack of good reason and evidence to believe in them, but (and I said this too) that my opinion is subject to change with new information. I applied the term very specifically and then you applied it sweepingly to me as if it's a type of person, as if I am skeptical of everything. I tend to be more skeptical of far-reaching claims for which the evidence is sketchy or lacking. I think everyone should be. I'd be willing to bet that you are at least occasionally skeptical of some claims as well.

Your time analogy falls short in several ways. First and most importantly is that I'm not trying to just show a paradox. I'm trying to show how you contradict yourself in your own statements and that this is a recurring problem with arguments for a supreme being.

Like I said, I can accept as reasonable notions like the universe was meant to be (existence exists etc.), that there are fundamental axioms to existence that we will never be able to explain with science because they are just that- axioms, and simply must be accepted. What strikes me as absurd and contrived is taking these fundamental universal concepts that may forever exceed the grasp of our limited human minds and then applying very limited human traits to it. That reeks of contrivance, of wanting to limit something that is inherently not definable so that we can experience it in a limited human way, of a desperate desire for it to be human-like when there's no reason to think that it would be. I have problems calling that "God" because God is always described in limited human terms. Axioms are not conscious, decision-making entities that love each of us unconditionally. You can say that things exist in this universe that we just can't understand and that's fine, but don't then say that it's beyond explanation or human understanding after you started off by saying I just have to be receptive to it.  It became beyond explanation when I challenged your statements and you didn't have a good answer.

Another way your time analogy falls short is that we all experience time, quite continuously actually. It's fine to say that we don't understand it fully, and we don't, but I would not claim it can't exist. Unlike your notion of God, I do not have to be "receptive" to time to experience it. I experience it so I then attempt to make sense of it. The nature of time may turn out very different than we believe, but it is not a paradox just because it's complicated and we don't understand it fully. Watch a video. It's made of frames. It just seems continuous in our interpretation of it. I'm not experiencing God at all; far from it. And you claim I have to be receptive to it in order to experience it, but why would I be receptive to something that makes no sense to me? The closest to an answer I got was that you were very emotionally vulnerable when you became receptive to it, but that kind of desperation and vulnerability makes people receptive to lots of things. That's why cults move in on people in times of stress and despair. That's why unscrupulous men try to have sex with women who are troubled from a recent relationship.

Obfuscation is a tactic built on the false premise that God is the default explanation. It's a false premise to say that if I can't explain everything in the universe (my world view?) then I must accept God as the answer. Belief in God is not an answer and doesn't resolve any questions. So if I tell you that this very specific notion of a conscious entity who willed the universe into being doesn't make any sense, then simply talking about how amazing and unknowable the universe appears to be is completely irrelevant. I can not know something but eliminate absurd answers. If I was at a party with you all night and a body was found on the other side of town and the autopsy proved it a recent death, it would be reasonable of me to say that I don't know who killed them but I know it wasn't Caleb. You imply I have no position but my position on creation of the universe by a conscious entity is actually quite firm.

NOTE: It says there were a few posts since I started writing this so I haven't read those.

[mackler]

I don't know if asking someone whether s/he is an atheist is as accurate measure of whether that is the case.  People are often wrong about themselves.  I've met plenty people who identified themselves as atheists, but who were just in denial about their religion.  For examples: the followers of the religion called "Democracy," with it's sacrament of "voting" (it's a lot like praying...you never really know if it worked or not but it makes you feel good) and its god called "will of the people."  Or the very popular religion known as "Medical Science," with it's labcoat wearing priests, institutionalized tithing system, and holy scriptures that are anything but scientific.  The magnitudes of faith that the followers of these religions exhibit often far exceed what you'll find in your typical self-identifying Christian.

On a not entirely unrelated note, there's a popular talk-radio program I often listen to with a host who vigorously claims to be an atheist.  He never fails to assert his atheism at the slightest mention of god.  The curious fact is that this particular radio host fully acknowledges that "government" is a non-existent abstraction.  Yet a good part of the program is devoted to talking about government and all the problems "it" causes.  I can't help but wonder why this atheist has such a reluctance to talk about one supposedly nonexistent entity but not another.