Redefining Athiesm: You cannot fully accept until you fully understand.

[Science>Myths]

Let me start of by saying I am new to these forums. I am a freshman Science major at a uni.

My argument is you cannot grasp an understanding of Atheism fully until you explore why you don't believe in a deity. "Becoming scientifically literate."

Anyone disagree?

[ydoaPs]

There is no understanding of atheism to be had; there's nothing to understand. It's not a worldview in and of itself. When you add the "why I'm an atheist", THEN you have something to understand. THEN you have the buildingblocks of a worldview.

 

When someone says they're an Ignostic Agnostic Weak Atheist Secular Humanist Materialist Empiricist, then you're cooking with gas and have something to understand.

[iNow]

I tend to agree with ydoaps, atheism is not a belief system or a worldview so it is not really something to "understand." It becomes more clear when you substitute lack of belief in god with lack of belief in something more mundane like unicorns or leprechauns or santa claus... or even other less commonly believed in gods like Thor, Apollo, Zeus, or the countless others laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. IMO, one would not need to explore why they don't believe in Puff the Magic Dragon or the existence of Thundercats in order to fully understand that they do not. Generally that exact exploration is the reason they don't accept those concepts as valid... It comes first, not after.

 

I agree that it's useful to explore why one chooses to believe or not to believe in things, and to always seek better understandings for our positions and motivations, but the reasons are usually pretty simple on this topic... The evidence is not compelling, there is no good reason to accept the god conjecture as true, and there are too many versions of god (plus a lack of rigorous definition of god) to take the idea seriously... It seems far more likely that god(s) are products of human imagination than likely that they actually exist.

 

With that said, I need to return to my first point. What does it mean to "grasp an understanding of atheism fully" given that atheism is just a lack of belief that someone else's fairy tale is valid... and given that it is not itself a worldview or ideology?

Edited December 7, 2012 by iNow

[imatfaal]

There is no understanding of atheism to be had; there's nothing to understand. It's not a worldview in and of itself. When you add the "why I'm an atheist", THEN you have something to understand. THEN you have the buildingblocks of a worldview.

 

When someone says they're an Ignostic Agnostic Weak Atheist Secular Humanist Materialist Empiricist, then you're cooking with gas and have something to understand.

 

Personally, I'M A WASHER - I gnostic M at erialist A gnostic W eakly A thiest S ecular Humanist Empiricist Rationalist (I was gonna try and shoe-horn DISH in there - but enough was enough)

 

Of those I guess the Ignostic and the Rationalist are the most dominant. Have you read Freddie Ayer on Ignosticism? Its not called by that name - cannot remember the name of the book.

[rigney]

No one alive today has the profundity of dealing with such a topic. Perhaps in another 10,000 years when science is better qualified?

[John Cuthber]

I don't believe that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden (ditto: God).

For some reason Rigney thinks that's too profound for anyone to cope with.

[Ringer]

No one alive today has the profundity of dealing with such a topic. Perhaps in another 10,000 years when science is better qualified?

Are you saying no one knows enough about atheism to talk about it? Because if so that's ridiculously false.

[rigney]

I don't believe that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden (ditto: God).

For some reason Rigney thinks that's too profound for anyone to cope with.

No! A good logical discussion is fine, But to make fun of anothers beliefs only conveys something less than ignorance.

[Moontanman]

No! A good logical discussion is fine, But to make fun of anothers beliefs only conveys something less than ignorance.

 

 

Make fun? How is not believing in a fairy tale making fun of those who do?

[rigney]

Are you saying no one knows enough about atheism to talk about it? Because if so that's ridiculously false.

Cuthber pretty well answered your question in post # 6. Generally folks don't deny some ignorance about many things. But to poke fun usually means the person is either scared or knows nothing of the subject..Only wish I had a better aptitude for science.

[ydoaPs]

Cuthber pretty well answered your question in post # 6. Generally folks don't deny some ignorance about many things. But to poke fun usually means the person is either scared or knows nothing of the subject..Only wish I had a better aptitude for science.

Who is making fun of what?

 

to poke fun usually means the person is either scared or knows nothing of the subject

Also, that's not true. Creationists and Tea Baggers, for example, are easy to make fun of precisely because they don't know jack.

[rigney]

 

 

Make fun? How is not believing in a fairy tale making fun of those who do?

Well, if you can confirm their belief is only a fairy tale, I'll believe you. Fair?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who is making fun of what?

 

Also, that's not true. Creationists and Tea Baggers, for example, are easy to make fun of precisely because they don't know jack.

 

 

About what, don't they know Jack?

Edited December 7, 2012 by rigney

[Ophiolite]

Let me start of by saying I am new to these forums. I am a freshman Science major at a uni.

My argument is you cannot grasp an understanding of Atheism fully until you explore why you don't believe in a deity. "Becoming scientifically literate."

Anyone disagree?

There are two categories of atheism.

 

There are those who have never believed, or have never sincerely believed. They match the group that most posters here have been referring to. It is passive non-belief.

 

Then there are those who have 'lost their faith' and 'found atheism'. There non-belief is an active thing. This second type may require more contemplation in order to continually sustain the justification for non-belief. That is not required in the first type, anymore than I require constant thinking to stay anchored to the Earth by gravity.

[Moontanman]

 

 

Well, if you can confirm their belief is only a fairy tale, I'll believe you. Fair?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would rigney but i have to go out again and catch an invisible unicorn to feed the damn invisible dragon I keep chained in my basement, damn thing is eating me out of house and home...

Edited December 7, 2012 by Moontanman

[iDevonian]

I think I may know what the original poster means. Some people abandon their faiths, and simply transition to new ones. Non belief comes in many forms, but the most clear form of atheism is one that is understood. Understanding knowledge and your world view, is greater than simply disbelieving in religion.

 

I would not word it the same as the original poster though, nor do i know if this is what he means.

[John Cuthber]

Cuthber pretty well answered your question in post # 6. Generally folks don't deny some ignorance about many things. But to poke fun usually means the person is either scared or knows nothing of the subject..Only wish I had a better aptitude for science.

Well, I also wish you had a better aptitude for science.

If you had then perhaps you would actually address the point I made (albeit implicitly).

What real difference is there between my not believing in God and my not believing in fairies at the bottom of my garden?

 

There is, I might remind you, no evidence for either.

I'm just pointing out that people's ignorance of God is exactly the same as their ignorance of fairies.

You seem to think that that nobody understands one, but they somehow understand the other..

What extraordinary proof can you supply for that extraordinary claim?

[rigney]

 

 

I would rigney but i have to go out again and catch an invisible unicorn to feed the damn invisible dragon I keep chained in my basement, damn thing is eating me out of house and home...

 

I would rigney but i have to go out again and catch an invisible unicorn to feed the damn invisible dragon I keep chained in my basement, damn thing is eating me out of house and home...

Thought you'd left all of those critters up in Sissonville when you finally turned your night lite off for the last time? Well, guess I could be wrong.

 

Well, I also wish you had a better aptitude for science.

If you had then perhaps you would actually address the point I made (albeit implicitly).

What real difference is there between my not believing in God and my not believing in fairies at the bottom of my garden?

 

There is, I might remind you, no evidence for either.

I'm just pointing out that people's ignorance of God is exactly the same as their ignorance of fairies.

You seem to think that that nobody understands one, but they somehow understand the other..

What extraordinary proof can you supply for that extraordinary claim?

I suppose if a person has the faith and smokin' or snortin' some good stuff, it's hard to say what he might find in his garden.

[Ringer]

 

Thought you'd left all of those critters up in Sissonville when you finally turned your night lite off for the last time? Well, guess I could be wrong.

 

I suppose if a person has the faith and smokin' or snortin' some good stuff, it's hard to say what he might find in his garden.

 

Why is it you seem to refuse to actually discuss points made by others?

[iNow]

IMO, he's a unique combination of ignorant and trolling.

[Bill Angel]

What real difference is there between my not believing in God and my not believing in fairies at the bottom of my garden?

 

There is, I might remind you, no evidence for either.

I'm just pointing out that people's ignorance of God is exactly the same as their ignorance of fairies.

 

True, but people's belief in non existent entities has also manifested itself in science.

At one time scientists believed in the existence of Phlogiston, but this is a belief that's been abandoned. Perhaps belief in God can be viewed as a belief in a scientific theory that is now obsolete, like Phlogiston?

[Ophiolite]

What real difference is there between my not believing in God and my not believing in fairies at the bottom of my garden?

 

There is, I might remind you, no evidence for either.

I'm just pointing out that people's ignorance of God is exactly the same as their ignorance of fairies.

You seem to think that that nobody understands one, but they somehow understand the other..

What extraordinary proof can you supply for that extraordinary claim?

 

I have no expectation of convincing you, but I do think you are mistaken,

 

Evidence for God is circumstantial, but it is there. It is insufficient to convince me, which is why I am agnostic, but it exists. Specifically:

 

1. The universe does exist. It seems rather odd that there should be something rather than nothing. One suspects the need for a First Cause, which we might as well call God. When you ask me what caused God, I have no idea: turtles all the way down?

 

2. Not only does the universe exist, but it is aware of its existence. That is bizarre. One can imagine a non-sentient First Cause producing a non-sentient universe, but a sentient universe rather seems to demand a sentient First Cause, i.e. God.

 

Points 1 and 2 might be seen as variants of the Design Argument of William Paley. It is fashionable to dismiss this work today, but Darwin admired it, carried it with him on the Beagle (I think) and structured Origin on its basis. An outright rejection of Evidences seems cavalier.

 

3. There is an intriguing argument that we may be part of a computer simulation. That would make the programmer, or programming team, God.

 

4. The argument against fine tuning of the universe for life has never been properly refuted (or properly proven),

 

Together, and to some degree even individually, these are all sufficient reason - in my view - to keep an open mind. I do not see a similar array of evidence for faeries and none at all for unicorns. Do note that I think none of this constitutes evidence for a Christian style God. Such a God might be more appropriately compared with faeries and unicorns. (But if that is the sort of God you are arguing against then I fear you have allowed your thinking.to be corrupted by the very existence of religion. )

[John Cuthber]

The difference is that while it was science (after a fashion) that invented Phlogiston, it was also science that checked on it and found that it was wrong.

They came up with the idea but they didn't believe in it so they tested it.

That's essentially the opposite of religion where they come up with an idea that can't (usually) be tested and then cling to belief in it even when it's as fishy as anything.

The idea of phlogiston, flawed though it was, at least explained some observed facts.

the idea of God doesn't explain anything because "Goddidit" isn't a reason.

[Bill Angel]

2. Not only does the universe exist, but it is aware of its existence. That is bizarre. One can imagine a non-sentient First Cause producing a non-sentient universe, but a sentient universe rather seems to demand a sentient First Cause, i.e. God.

Astronomers can use their telescopes to look billions of years back in time, to a time when there is no evidence that sentient life existed. There is no evidence that the universe was different, that the laws of physics were different, than they are now. So I don't think that you can look at the laws of physics and say "from these laws sentient life will emerge".

So one could just as easily argue that there is a God who created this universe with it's particular laws of physics, but He doesn't particularly care whether or not sentient life exists in His universe.

 

Also self awareness or sentience seems to be an emergent property, in that it can evolve from lower life forms that are non-sentient. What evidence supports this? For me the evidence is that one really can't draw a line that demarcates sentient from non-sentient life. And if one thinks that one can, where does that demarcation line exist in the continuum of life that that extends from one celled animals at one end and is anchored by human beings at the other?

[John Cuthber]

It isn't just fashion that rejects Paley's work.

For a start it fails to take account of the nature of evolution (hardly a shock if it was printed before Darwin popularised that theory).

Also, the accidental watch isn't as unlikely as he thought it was.

 

Pointing out that Darwin took a copy of Paley's book on the beagle adds nothing to the discussion. He probably took a bible too.

 

"1. The universe does exist. It seems rather odd that there should be something rather than nothing. One suspects the need for a First Cause, which we might as well call God."

Fine, call it what you will, but don't ascribe properties to it without evidence.

Don't, for example, say that it took 7 days or that it created a garden of Eden.

 

In fact, since the word "God" is already used for something it's a bit silly to use it for something that may be something else.

 

Does it make sense to say

" The universe does exist. It seems rather odd that there should be something rather than nothing. One suspects the need for a First Cause, which we might as well call newspaper."

or does that risk leading to confusion?

Perhaps it would be better to let the word newspaper continue in it's well established role?

In that case, perhaps it's also better to leave the word "God" as it is, and find a better name for the beginning of the universe.

How about this?

"The universe does exist. It seems rather odd that there should be something rather than nothing. One suspects the need for a First Cause, which we might as well call creation."

 

OK, there's still a problem- this bit

" It seems rather odd that there should be something rather than nothing."

It might seem that way to you, but to me it's obvious.

If there was nothing rather than something then I'd not be here to wonder about it. Since I'm here there must be "something"- it's not odd at all, it's a clear consequence of my being here that "something" must exist.

 

Incidentally, that's the same argument as has, in fact, been used to refute your 4th point. I think Douglas Adams put it as well as anyone.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking

 

 

This" That is bizarre. One can imagine a non-sentient First Cause producing a non-sentient universe, but a sentient universe rather seems to demand a sentient First Cause" is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't see how that happened without a God doesn't mean a God is needed- it may mean you missed something.

 

As for "There is an intriguing argument that we may be part of a computer simulation. That would make the programmer, or programming team, God."

the simple answer is "or we may not" and, since there's no evidence that we are, it's a non-starter as evidence for God's existence.

Specifically, it's an example of begging the question.

[tar]

In fact, since the word "God" is already used for something it's a bit silly to use it for something that may be something else.

 

John Cuthber,

 

If the word "God" is already used for something, then there must be that something that the word "God" is used for.

 

As there are pieces of paper we put ink on in agreed upon and understood patterns that we call newspapers. The thing we are referring to by the word newspaper has an agreed upon meaning to refer to existing things that we have created and brought into reality. Perhaps the word "God" in its agreed upon meaning is referring to those real things that we (humans) had no part in bringing into existence, but that non-the-less have an agency about them. And we need a common word to refer to this other-than-known agent.

 

Have you revealed that you too believe in God, by this statement?

 

Or to reverse the thread title, can an atheist "use" the word "god"?

 

That is, if you know what the agreed upon meaning of the word is, then it is difficult to say that you fully understand the thing that you do not believe exists.

 

As has been pointed out already in the thread, we are going to need a little more time, as a species, to "fully understand".

 

We know the universe is capable of agency, because we have it ourselves. "Only in our case is agency possible", would be quite an unsupportable claim, indeed.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

 

Astronomers can use their telescopes to look billions of years back in time, to a time when there is no evidence that sentient life existed. There is no evidence that the universe was different, that the laws of physics were different, than they are now. So I don't think that you can look at the laws of physics and say "from these laws sentient life will emerge". So one could just as easily argue that there is a God who created this universe with it's particular laws of physics, but He doesn't particularly care whether or not sentient life exists in His universe. Also self awareness or sentience seems to be an emergent property, in that it can evolve from lower life forms that are non-sentient. What evidence supports this? For me the evidence is that one really can't draw a line that demarcates sentient from non-sentient life. And if one thinks that one can, where does that demarcation line exist in the continuum of life that that extends from one celled animals at one end and is anchored by human beings at the other?

Bill Angel,

 

Not quite sure that questioning the intentions of a creator can be done, without imagining one to question the intentions of. If the universe is to have no intentions, then what its going to do next has not yet been experienced, has not yet been concieved of, and certainly we, as universe material, can not "fully understand" ourselves as solid anchors on one end of a thusly "terminated" continuum.

 

Interesting to me, is that when we look back into our universe's past, millions of lys, we see parts of our universe that have not yet evolved those millions of lys. Parts of our own Milky Way Galaxy are witnessed by us as they were 400,000 years ago. If in such a region, a similar system to our Sun's, and a similar planet to the Earth, spawned life and developed a way to be noticed from 400,000 lys away...now...we would not do the noticing of it, 'til the year 402,012 AD. We had sentient life and civilations on this planet 4,000 years ago, that probably is not being noticed, by something that has the capacity to notice things, that resides a mere 4,000 lys from here. The signals would be weak at that distance, and I don't remember the Babylonians sending out any becons that announced their sentience to such distant eyes or ears or flazgrots.

 

Regards, TAR2