Atheism

Originally posted by King Kandy
How on Earth did you get out of that permaban you had a while back?

It was never quite a perm. I think Ush gave him a month last time around. He's fast on his way to one though, it seems.

His comments are ignorable, but it's a shame that it will likely push back the actual posts of discussion. I try to bring food for thought to this thread every now and then, but usually no one bites.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Atheism is gay.

A religion can't be of a sexual preference. And what's with the homosexual fetish recently?

Originally posted by Digi
And what's with the homosexual fetish recently?

lol

ICWATUDIDTHAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But this doesn't tell us anything about the category of atheism.

Actually, it does tell us quite a bit. It tells us HUGE amounts about atheism. Especially if you don't quote those two sentences out of context and apply them to the rest of my post and the topic. 😐

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Many kinds of atheism are religions.

Yes, this is part of my point. Go on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Atheism itself is not a religion.

Just as theism is not. This is part of my point. Go on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Many kinds of theism[s] are religions.

Yes, this is implicit of my point. Go on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Theism itself is not a religion.

Yes, this is part of the point. Go on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You would compare Catholicism not to "Atheism" but to Secular Humanism, which is certainly an atheistic religion.

Yes, this is part of my point. Go on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You would compare Buddhism not to "Theism" but to Judaism, which is certainly a theistic religion.

Yes, this is part of my point.

So what did you actually tell me in your reply other than you knew exactly what I was talking about?

Check this out, and it will blow you away: some strict anti-theistic atheists can also be dogmatic in their belief systems. GASP! 🙂

Originally posted by Omega Vision
YouTube video

I like this guy's conclusion: do not entertain the things you cannot know for sure. (Agnosticism or apatheism).

However, that approach is a slippery slope argument as it applies quite readily to science and discovery. But, to not take his comment out of context and only apply it to "belief in God" it still works quite well.

I'll never be able to accept that a person is being honest when they profess to be the classic definition of "atheist". In order to conclude "there is no God", you have to be irrational. The most reasonable and logical position would (as the old man does) be to conclude, "I have not found any evidence of "reason" for God".

From what I have seen of the majority of KMC atheists, this is also how they believe...which is quite awesome. Because the "real life" atheists I know are not this reasonable. They declare things such as, "There definitely is no God. Be reasonable and scientific." That's ignorance is irritating to me...and offends my sensibilities.

However, and this is weird...some people (like Bardock42 and Symmetric Chaos) will never be convinced that God exists no matter what happens or what they experience.

So how can certain atheists ever be convinced that God exists? What would it take for you to start believing in God? Anyone can answer. And by "God", I mean the generic "benevolent and loving" Creator of the universe that cares about "His/Her" children and creation. Doesn't have to be, specifically, the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Vishnu, etc. God. Just the ultimate for all of reality.

So what would it take to actively believe in such an entity for you atheists?

I think we've had this talk, dudemon. Theism means as many things as there are theists, and atheism means as many things as there are atheists, so with that disclaimer out of the way: most atheists would not make the assertion "there is no God" if truly pressed intellectually. Calling this "classic" atheism, or whatever other label, is meaningless. No "classic" anything exists, it's all individual.

Anyway, it's a statement of non-belief for most: i.e. "I don't believe in God," not "there is no God." I'm fond of saying this, and it's true, but even Richard Dawkins is on record as saying the former, not the latter. If the poster child for militant atheism doesn't fit into your definition of "classic" you're probably getting something wrong. One can be militant and strict and still not make an absolute statement that is indefensible. Please please please, show me atheists saying the latter. I actually want to see them. I haven't seen many yet, or maybe at all. Hell, even Sym. Has he said this? Sym, confirm?

You may also be seeing the irrational "angry" atheists, which is a different thing entirely. There's is an emotional reaction to how they've been treated as a result of religion. It's a social, emotional response, not an intellectual one. You're dealing with a different beast there, and I wouldn't be surprised to find the "definitely is no God" people among them because they're not actually thinking, they're just reacting, and are as susceptible to the same leaps over logic as their dogmatic foils.

Anyway, what would it take to believe? Reliable, repeatable demonstrations of the power that the supposed being possesses. If someone tells you they can jump over a building, you don't believe them. Once they do, and you can eliminate trickery, you believe. Same principle writ large. Because my guess is that if the historical Jesus was placed in a controlled setting and was able to reproduce the miracles of the Bible unaided, quite a few would convert. But I'm equally as confident that if we time-ported the historical Jesus to do just that, he would produce no such result. For me personally, that wouldn't be all I need, because it would prove that something unexplained is going on, but not that the something is the Christian God. But it would be a start. As it is, though, theists are utterly impotent to produce anything that isn't consistent with causal reality as we know it, which leaves religion to blind faith and we're back to square one.

Also, the mods chatted and decided. Zeal's gone. I hope he got to see my homosexual pun up there before the ban. I was proud of that.

😊

Originally posted by Digi
...most atheists would not make the assertion "there is no God" if truly pressed intellectually.

I am glad you said "most". Of the real atheists (not internet homies), the extreme majority are quite adamant about there not being a God. Only one of them will travel the route of agnosticism if pressed.

Yes, there are idiot atheists too. However, factually, there are fewer of them (that's what the measures indicate, at least) than idiot evangelical Christians.

Originally posted by Digi
Calling this "classic" atheism, or whatever other label, is meaningless. No "classic" anything exists, it's all individual.

You can give it whatever adjective you want: I'll refer to it as "classic." You know what I mean so any sort of distinction beyond a pontification of terms is not needed. In an academic setting, I would use other words.

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, it's a statement of non-belief for most: i.e. "I don't believe in God," not "there is no God."

This is what I'm on about. Most of the KMC atheists say and believe the former and quite often. This is why I enjoy talking religion more here than anywhere else (including church) because I am not exposed to closed minded idiocy or indoctrination.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm fond of saying this, and it's true, but even Richard Dawkins is on record as saying the former, not the latter.

It's also part of why I like Dawkins. Like I said, I cannot accept someone saying that they believe in logic and reason and then say stuff like "there definitely is not God".

It's just that I hold more faith in "He exists" than "he doesn't exist" compared to most atheists. Let's put a percentage to it. I'm at about 90% (if I were at 100, I would not only be close minded, by I would not be able to call it faith). Most atheists are probably at 1%.

Originally posted by Digi
If the poster child for militant atheism doesn't fit into your definition of "classic" you're probably getting something wrong.

I'm not sure what this statement is about.

Originally posted by Digi
One can be militant and strict and still not make an absolute statement that is indefensible. Please please please, show me atheists saying the latter. I actually want to see them. I haven't seen many yet, or maybe at all. Hell, even Sym. Has he said this? Sym, confirm?

lol

My goal is not to burst your idea of what a classic atheists are like, but there are quite a few idiotic atheists out there.

But, here's a couple of examples:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

He does admit that it would be fun to be proven wrong, though. I like this guy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/there-is-no-god-and-you-k_b_8459.html

That guy is closer to the pessimistic type. The one that seems to loathe humanity (or rather, inhumanity) and despises those that look to an "imaginary friend" to help through tough times. He's very cynical and jaded...but makes good points. That type of person is like a festering sore: a ball of negativity and hate.

I do not think SC said that, ever. He told me that if he were to meet God or something like that, after death, he would still doubt it was really God. He said, to paraphrase, "How do I know that my brain is not suspended in a vat?" (The ol' "Matrix" argument.)

Originally posted by Digi
You may also be seeing the irrational "angry" atheists, which is a different thing entirely. There's is an emotional reaction to how they've been treated as a result of religion. It's a social, emotional response, not an intellectual one. You're dealing with a different beast there, and I wouldn't be surprised to find the "definitely is no God" people among them because they're not actually thinking, they're just reacting, and are as susceptible to the same leaps over logic as their dogmatic foils.

👆

One of my very good friends is like that. However, he's not an atheist: just very antitheistic like Hitchens (RIP 🙁 )

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, what would it take to believe? Reliable, repeatable demonstrations of the power that the supposed being possesses. If someone tells you they can jump over a building, you don't believe them. Once they do, and you can eliminate trickery, you believe. Same principle writ large.

Very reasonable.

Originally posted by Digi
Because my guess is that if the historical Jesus was placed in a controlled setting and was able to reproduce the miracles of the Bible unaided, quite a few would convert.

While I agree with your conclusion, it would not convince me. We are "supposedly" just a 2-5 decades off from doing more and better miracles than Jesus.

Originally posted by Digi
But I'm equally as confident that if we time-ported the historical Jesus to do just that, he would produce no such result.

Touché.

Of late, I also have more doubts about the divinity of Jesus Christ. However, it does not destroy my beliefs as a Mormon because Mormons still hold that Jesus is not God and is subordinate and "lesser" than God.

Originally posted by Digi
For me personally, that wouldn't be all I need, because it would prove that something unexplained is going on, but not that the something is the Christian God. But it would be a start. As it is, though, theists are utterly impotent to produce anything that isn't consistent with causal reality as we know it, which leaves religion to blind faith and we're back to square one.

Indeed.

And this is the bane of most religions. I absolutely HATE the faith arguments. Not because I think they are wrong but because I loathe not having something testable and knowable with a surety. If I had not been so curious about both "sides" of the argument, I would probably be atheist. My curiosity virtually forced me to research the counter-arguments to atheism. Both sound great. Both are awesome. As I have told you in the past, I am perfectly accepting of oblivion after this life. I see problems with an eternal existence. I also see problems with a temporal one. I see good in both, as well.

But, to address what you stated more directly, I don't think anything God does is truly "supernatural". It's just supernatural until we can understand it with science.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, the mods chatted and decided. Zeal's gone. I hope he got to see my homosexual pun up there before the ban. I was proud of that.

😊

Poor dude. 🙁

Here's my Eulogy for him:

He should have played nicer. However, he refused to give in to pressure and threats and stood by his beliefs...however strong and offensive they may have been. He was like a mean, negative, version of Ron Paul: never gave up on his positions. lol RIP, Zeal. My the Gods be with you. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's just that I hold more faith in "He exists" than "he doesn't exist" compared to most atheists. Let's put a percentage to it. I'm at about 90% (if I were at 100, I would not only be close minded, by I would not be able to call it faith). Most atheists are probably at 1%.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Poor dude. 🙁

Here's my Eulogy for him:

He should have played nicer. However, he refused to give in to pressure and threats and stood by his beliefs...however strong and offensive they may have been. He was like a mean, negative, version of Ron Paul: never gave up on his positions. lol RIP, Zeal. My the Gods be with you. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, and this is weird...some people (like Bardock42 and Symmetric Chaos) will never be convinced that God exists no matter what happens or what they experience.

At first I was going to debate this but you're probably right. First of all I'd have to know what you mean by "god" but there certainly aren't any experiences I can think of that are best explained by an omnipotent actor and I find the world to contradict an omnibenevolent one.

Conceivably a lesser definition of god is fine, though. There's no reason I can think of that Thor's existence couldn't be proven.

For me, as a human, it is inconceivable that I can experience anything that could prove an omnipotent being. My senses and my thought are far too limited.

The way we humans experience the world is so limited that at most what I could believe is that there is someone or something that is advanced enough to have the ability to fool my senses completely. A ability achievable far below omnipotence and absolutely no proof of having created anything.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
At first I was going to debate this but you're probably right. First of all I'd have to know what you mean by "god" but there certainly aren't any experiences I can think of that are best explained by an omnipotent actor and I find the world to contradict an omnibenevolent one.

Actually, you were the first person I came across that gave a compelling argument for why you could never really and truly believe in God or know of God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Conceivably a lesser definition of god is fine, though. There's no reason I can think of that Thor's existence couldn't be proven.

I agree to this. And...to be honest...I think the God I believe in and know is a lesser God than most Christians. I consider Him to be higher than Demi-God, of course...but lesser than this unreachable or unknowable status. We could not know such a being if He were that great. We could not even comprehend a single aspect of such an entity so "believing" in such a thing would be futile.

Edit -

Originally posted by Bardock42
For me, as a human, it is inconceivable that I can experience anything that could prove an omnipotent being. My senses and my thought are far too limited.

The way we humans experience the world is so limited that at most what I could believe is that there is someone or something that is advanced enough to have the ability to fool my senses completely. A ability achievable far below omnipotence and absolutely no proof of having created anything.

Oh. lol.

Ditto.

I don't believe in that super-God like the Trinity Concept stuff. Just too complicated and it puts God directly out of reach of man.

However, I hold that we are gods, ourselves, already. We may have created universes that came into existence and faded already in fractions of our own timeline. This could be where our universe came from. This would make the concept of "God" a lot less "godly", imo.

Bardock's point seems to be not that an omnipotent God couldn't exist, just that his limited senses means it could never be proven to him. It's a subtle distinction, but makes invalid your portrayal of him earlier.

Similar story with Sym, though apparently to him the universe is incompatible with an omni-everything God. Still, there's a rational basis behind it, not an unwavering statement of unprovable faith.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, to address what you stated more directly, I don't think anything God does is truly "supernatural". It's just supernatural until we can understand it with science.

But then the term "God" becomes obsolete, when you're just referring to the causal forces of the universe. The whole point of "classic" thesim ( 😉 ) is that he's above our reality in some meaningful way. Substituting "God" for this is no different than a deist god.

Originally posted by Digi
Bardock's point seems to be not that an omnipotent God couldn't exist, just that his limited senses means it could never be proven to him. It's a subtle distinction, but makes invalid your portrayal of him earlier.

Similar story with Sym, though apparently to him the universe is incompatible with an omni-everything God. Still, there's a rational basis behind it, not an unwavering statement of unprovable faith.

I disagree with your assessment on both Sym and Bardock: they actually believe it is impossible to know the God, as I defined it, would be possible to know.

Read what I said, again:

"However, and this is weird...some people (like Bardock42 and Symmetric Chaos) will never be convinced that God exists no matter what happens or what they experience."

Sym's reasons are: something, not quite God, could fake being God so I have no way to actually and truly believe it's God. SC even said he was going to argue the point (but I believe he remembered our prior conversation).

Bardock's reasons are: There's no way I could know such a great being if we can even label it as such.

They cannot be convinced, ever, that whatever they experience can be called "God" because of their personal philosophies on such a being.

Basically, there are people that can never be convinced that what they experience, no matter how amazing, it is God. Entertaining other possibilities is not being convinced: unless you want to say you believe in God (because you entertain, still, the possibility of a God...but you don't believe in it/Him/Her).

Originally posted by Digi
But then the term "God" becomes obsolete, when you're just referring to the causal forces of the universe. The whole point of "classic" thesim ( 😉 ) is that he's above our reality in some meaningful way. Substituting "God" for this is no different than a deist god.

We've had this conversation, before.

No, that's not what my words mean or what you should have concluded. If God acts in the universe through a set of natural laws, he does not cease to be God. Our understanding how everything works, including how He interacts with the universe, does not cause God to cease to exist or be useless: it only means we understand Him and the Universe better.

Also, it should be noted that neither of the articles you link espouses what you mentioned. In fact, Penn Jillette refutes it in amusingly frank terms:
So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Not "There is no God," or something similar. It's a statement of belief. Also subtly different than "I do not believe there is a God." One's a statement of belief, the other of non-belief. But neither is the hardline, objective stance "there is no God" that can't fully be logically defended.

Hitchens is a special case. He chose his words to shock and anger the right people. And his "there can be no God" arguments in the article seem to focus on a particular, societally accepted version of Him. I'm not as intimately familiar with all of Hitchens' works, but my guess is that he wouldn't say "There is no God" without the proper logical qualifiers. I can't be sure with him, but he was too smart and too aware of his arguments not to be imo.

To Bardock and Sym: "They cannot be convinced" and "they know there is no God" are also different. I realize I'm being (possibly annoyingly) semantic here, but it's where it really matters with this argument.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We've had this conversation, before.

No, that's not what my words mean or what you should have concluded. If God acts in the universe through a set of natural laws, he does not cease to be God. Our understanding how everything works, including how He interacts with the universe, does not cause God to cease to exist or be useless: it only means we understand Him and the Universe better.

Then you also make Him essentially unknowable, since he is literally the laws of the universe. This statement, however, seems troublesome:
Our understanding how everything works, including how He interacts with the universe...

Is how he interacts with the universe different than how it works? Shouldn't they be one and the same in your naturalistic description? Knowing God in any objective way seem incompatible with having nothing at all outside the causal workings of the universe. How do you reconcile that?

Originally posted by Digi
Also, it should be noted that neither of the articles you link espouses what you mentioned. In fact, Penn Jillette refutes it in amusingly frank terms:
So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

You can't possibly hold such a position if you read the words right after that: the next words he says is refuting that claim/position and stating that he's moved beyond that point. He explains, " I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do..."

And the title of the article is exactly the words you and I discussed: "There is No God." Not, "I believe there is no God" Or "there is a possibility of no God".

Regardless, both articles go to prove a point for you: you wanted evidence of atheists who say "there is no god" and I found you two examples (in about 5 seconds with Google search).

Originally posted by Digi
...but it's where it really matters with this argument.

I disagree. There is a point where trying too hard to play semantics actually misses the point. I am guilty of this and I do it quite often.

The Jillette quote I posted comes after the material you mentioned, where he makes an unequivocal statement of his position with the sole intent of disambiguating it. It's painfully clear, dude. The title is the headline grabber, but if that's all you're basing your opinion on, you're not actually reading it.

Saying he's beyond atheism is saying he's beyond the statement of non-belief that is "I don't believe in God." He also explicitly says that too. He's using the exact same distinctions I did in my last few posts. But it's still a statement of belief.

Originally posted by Digi
Then you also make Him essentially unknowable, since he is literally the laws of the universe.

That's the exact opposite conclusion that you can make from my statements.

Because I stated that God is knowable, you conclude that I am stating that he is unknowable?

That makes no sense.

Originally posted by Digi
This statement, however, seems troublesome:
Our understanding how everything works, including how He interacts with the universe...

Originally posted by Digi
Is how he interacts with the universe different than how it works?

No, especially if you know how he does it. It is only supernatural until you reach that point.

Originally posted by Digi
Shouldn't they be one and the same in your naturalistic description?

No. But I do hold that God is far more naturalistic than the extreme majority of religions hold.

Originally posted by Digi
Knowing God in any objective way seem incompatible with having nothing at all outside the causal workings of the universe.

By your definition, but not by mine.

Originally posted by Digi
How do you reconcile that?

Seems fairly simple, to me. Not very complicated.

God interacts with the universe through the "x" force. We study and understand the "x" force. We then know how God interacts with the universe. Now the "x" force is no longer supernatural but a natural part of the universe.

The process by which God uses the "x" force may be the supernatural part, but even that may be something we could understand, eventually...maybe through some sort of consciousness ascension. wink wink

Consider that I am Mormon. Then consider that Mormons believe we can become like God.

The consider that knowing how God created the universe and how He interacts with it is knowable. Then consider that everything is considered "knowable" at that point.

Then you see that it is all just a stretch to say God is supernatural. "supernatural" then becomes a philosophical statement rather than a literal state or qualification. Sure, there has to be something supernatural about God....but not really. The more you understand it, the less "supernatural" it can be. The ultimate state of knowing God is knowing everything about Him is "natural", not supernatural. Supernatural is just a term we use for shit we don't understand quite yet.

Originally posted by Digi
The Jillette quote I posted comes after the material you mentioned, where he makes an unequivocal statement of his position with the sole intent of disambiguating it. It's painfully clear, dude.

And the quote I posted comes directly after that statement. Did you read the article?

Originally posted by Digi
The title is the headline grabber, but if that's all you're basing your opinion on, you're not actually reading it.

Yeah, I read it. But, to me, it seems you didn't read the article nor did you read my post where I quoted the section directly after the statement.

Regardless, this discussion is entirely tangential to the point: there are atheists out there that literally say "there is no god".

Originally posted by Digi
Saying he's beyond atheism is saying he's beyond the statement of non-belief that is "I don't believe in God." He also explicitly says that too. He's using the exact same distinctions I did in my last few posts. But it's still a statement of belief.

I disagree for reasons I have outlined already. Additionally, he literally titled it "there is no god" and it runs congruent with other atheistic sentiments of "there is no god" for which you desired evidence. You can call it an attention grabber, I'll just leave it for what it is: he published a work that states in no uncertain terms "there is no god" and he explains that saying "I don't believe in god" is not enough and he's beyond that...that = there is no god.

Blah, I said Hitchens earlier, I meant Harris.

I'm not trying to be patronizing in posting the following, I just really want to see what you're seeing. I've bolded what I'm focusing on.

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic....

And so on. He says he believes like 6 times there. Nowhere is an absolute statement of "there is no God." He understands the logical fallacy of that position.

As to the natural/supernatural thing, I get your point about there not really being something that's "supernatural." My point is just that, if you identify "force x" eventually, and it's a known aspect of the physical universe, there's literally no way to know if or how God interacts with it. As soon as it's a natural part of the universe, it functions of itself, like gravity, and doesn't need a Prime Mover. it seems like however far back you try to take the logic, there comes a point where you have to accept that God manipulates these natural forces, but without ever being able to say how.

You leave yourself a possible out in saying that we could also possibly one day learn how God interacts with the universe. But then, we haven't done this yet, so you're operating from a premise that would be logical if it came to be, but for which we have no evidence.