How many here are atheists?

[Dylboz]

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.

Where did I personally insult you. I went out of my way NOT to be insulting. Please explain. Also, when you equate atheism with skepticism, and skepticism with nihilism, you "accuse" atheists of having no values. And as for meaning, it needs no external check, nothing that it necessarily has to be created in relation to, so there is no leap of faith there. I say "this has meaning for me, I wish to spend my life doing this because I believe it is right and it fills me with a sense of purpose." Done. No faith at all, a conclusion based on my subjective valuation of things, which occurs entirely inside my head.

[David]

Dale brought up the math teacher comic strip. 
I believe that math, will either prove god or disprove him.  Some of the latest theoris would have sounded a lot like god a hundred years ago.  Multiple universes, dimensions, time travel. 
BTW, Einstein believed in God.  He is well known for his belief that god does not play dice with the universe.  The foundation of his theories was that of stability.  He was prolly much more successful by choosing to deal with unknown variables from a particular perspective.  It undoubtable made his mental expiriments easier.  Had he come from a different perspective, say, that of chaos, he may not have been as successful.  For example, at the atomic level, the movement of matter is so variable and complex, prediction is very difficult.  Prediction is the test to see if a theory is true or not.  He may not have been as successful in his theories regarding gravity and light, which are much more stable if he had assumned the perspective of chaos. 
Unfortunately Einstein and all that have come after him have not been able to come up with a 'theory of everything', one that unites some of the various proven forces in the universe.  They know the parts are right, because they can accurately predict motion with the understanding they have of them, but they can't seem to figure out how to fit them together. 

[dalebert]

Dale brought up the math teacher comic strip. 
I believe that math, will either prove god or disprove him.

But David, you're defining away the meaning of God. That's what I was talking about of defining God so broadly that everyone becomes a theist. The more you do that, the more the question becomes meaningless. If you say there are undeniable axioms to the universe, things that must be accepted because they are fundamental to the universe and that cannot be broken down into smaller understandable parts, that's not much of a reach. I'd actually be surprised if there does not turn out to be a whole lot more to the universe than we're currently aware of like multiple dimensions or what-not. That doesn't mean a consciousness pre-existed the universe and was able to create it but can't talk to us. I don't see math answering that.

[srqrebel]

...Einstein believed in God.  He is well known for his belief that god does not play dice with the universe...

Indeed. It's a common trap: When one cannot arrive at a satisfactory explanation for a particular observation, the "God" concept provides a ready-made respite from further fruitless efforts at explaining the phenomenon. In short, it is a copout for the mind-weary, nothing more and nothing less.

Einstein recognized that in addition to the readily identifiable components of existence as we experience it, namely matter and energy, there was a third, controlling component that brings order to existence. He tried in vain to identify that component, and ultimately called it "God", for lack of a better term.

Dr. Frank R. Wallace, a former Senior Research Chemist at E. I. Du Pont, and author of the groundbreaking work, The Neo-Tech Discovery, identified that third, controlling component of existence as consciousness. Which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense. Even a complex computer that is capable of bringing order to vast volumes of information, has to ultimately originate from, and be programmed by, a conscious entity.

Just as existence exists, with no exception possible and no further explanation required, so must all of its components exist with it (eternally). From this, it is clear that consciousness has been around forever, just as matter and energy have been around forever -- though in the grand scheme of things, all three components are in constant flux. Hence, consciousness is potentially a very recent arrival on our planet, and there is ample evidence to support that. That evidence is presented in depth by Julian Jaynes, in his book, The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind.

My working hypothesis, (and I do recognize that it is a mere hypothesis), is that consciousness, being the controlling and ordering force of existence that it is, and having self-interest, self-preservation, and self-propagation as an integral part of its nature, is a perpetually self-propagating phenomenon. For example --as we, the conscious entities of planet Earth, relentlessly increase our working knowledge of the universe and multiply our resultant technological capability to control and order our environment and bend it to our will, we will eventually reach the point where we can actually create entire new universes, and initiate the evolution of a new wave of conscious entities.

As a species, we are but an arms length from biological immortality -- but no sooner will we have achieved it, and it will already be made obsolete by a quantum leap to a highly superior, manmade existence: The merger of man with his own technology, leaving his inferior, biological larval stage behind forever.

This metamorphosis will be so magnificent as to make the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly seem absolutely boring by comparison. Once the consciousness of the biological individual is transferred to its consciously created, technological counterpart (designed at least initially to perfectly imitate its biological counterpart in appearance and touch), a whole host of restraints will be cast aside permanently. Imagine an indefinite existence free of aging, disease, and any other biological afflictions; learning at the speed of light, combined with a virtually limitless, perfect memory; the ability to annex the collective knowledge stream (of which the present internet is an early prototype) at will; in short, a coming into our own as the Gods of the Universe that we are.

At that point, we will have completed the Grand Cycle of Consciousness... and the next wave of conscious propagation will soon thereafter be initiated.

To me, this hypothesis integrates both the observable facts of existence itself, and the outstanding technological trajectory we are on as radically unique beings, into the fabric of reality far better than a static belief in a "higher power" endowed with mysterious, unattainable attributes, as if we were mere helpless, reactionary organisms -- which we clearly are not.

[dalebert]

Well said, Menno, but really, physical bodies are so 20th century. Virtual bodies and virtual worlds will suffice, at least for a while.

[FTL_Ian]

I subscribe to Menno's vision.  Good stuff.   

[kola]

whos einsteen?

kola

[FTL_Ian]

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.

What show is that?

[dalebert]

What show is that?

I was wondering that too.

[Jim Johnson]

OOh! OOh!  Pick Me!

Pick Me! Pick Me... I know... I know!

I'm right here in the front row!  Pick Me! 

OOh OOh.....OOh!

[Caleb]

Just as existence exists, with no exception possible and no further explanation required, so must all of its components exist with it (eternally). From this, it is clear that consciousness has been around forever, just as matter and energy have been around forever -- though in the grand scheme of things, all three components are in constant flux.

My working hypothesis, (and I do recognize that it is a mere hypothesis), is that consciousness, being the controlling and ordering force of existence that it is, and having self-interest, self-preservation, and self-propagation as an integral part of its nature, is a self-propagating phenomenon.

When the atheists are saying stuff like this, and the theists are saying stuff like "I think that agnosticism is philosophically the preferable position", why are we fighting?

I think I conceive of God in exactly the way Menno just described. There is the infinite. Now, I'm always reluctant to say definitive things about the infinite, but one thing that I think is reasonably certain is that the infinite is unitary, so there aren't two or more infinites. It's all the same. So time, space, matter, and energy are all bound to this, along with no doubt many things that we can't conceive of just yet. The question of consciousness turns on this:  Is it emergent, or is it inherent? If it is emergent, then it wouldn't necessarily be a component of the infinite, it could just be part of our finite nature. But if it is inherent, then it would be a component (for lack of a better word) of the infinite. A consciousness which is. The "I AM".

I never have understood why this is so controversial. If you don't believe it, who cares? But why such vehemence to it, why such malice towards those who accept it?

I scrupulously distance myself from Menno's vision of the future, though. I don't particularly want to become a computer.

[Caleb]

Dr. Frank R. Wallace, a former Senior Research Chemist at E. I. Du Pont, and author of the groundbreaking work, The Neo-Tech Discovery, identified that third, controlling component of existence as consciousness.

Menno, this isn't a new thought. It is exactly the essence of process philosophy, the most important part being pan-experientialism. Process philosophy goes back to the 1920's, with a physicist/philosopher named Alfred North Whitehead, most famous for authoring Process and Reality, but also the co-author (with Bertrand Russell) of Principia Mathematica.

[Vitruvian]

why are we fighting?

We are trying simply to get a straight answer from you, Caleb.  You have said you believe that God exists, but refuse to define that term when pressed.  Do you believe that Hpe exists? How about Iqf? Jrg?

What do you mean when you say God?

[FTL_Ian]

I thought it might've been FTL, but we talk about both govt and god, and I know that neither exist, while people who believe in them certainly do, so it can't be us...

[ReverendRyan]

A little more clarification:

Theism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true and an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.

Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

   1. The god exists.
   2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

   1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
   2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)

While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).

Gnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim.

Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.

Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.

Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.

While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

As the terms we have been discussing concerning belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive, it is possible to combine them into four different descriptions:



Note that case 1 describes weak atheism, and is the default position, but case 2, as stated, is actually stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of knowledge.

Clearly the distinction between belief and knowledge is an important one, and it is this distinction that is often misunderstood, or simply ignored, by self-identified "believers".

A common usage of the term agnostic denotes a philosophical position invented by Thomas Huxley. This type of agnostic would claim that the answers to questions about the existence of gods are both unknown and fundamentally unknowable. In addition, many agnostics believe that such questions are essentially meaningless, as the concept of "god" is ill-defined.

It's important to note, when discussing the complicated issues of knowledge and epistemology, that these claims of knowledge do not necessarily require absolute omniscience. It can be argued that we can never truly "know" anything, yet we constantly make claims of knowledge. You may "know" who your (birth) mother is, for example — but you could be wrong. For many gnostic atheists, their claim of knowledge stems from practical considerations. The positive assertion that "gods don't exist" can be made, and said to be "known", in the same spirit as the statement that "leprechauns don't exist".