Has atheism become religion?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(15-07-2013 10:50 AM)childeye Wrote:  
(13-07-2013 01:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Atheism is simply not believing in any god.
The lack of belief in gods is often the result of critical thinking, which includes skepticism.
I have no problem understanding that so long as I understand what your interpretation of the term god is. I do not define God the same. Hence to me you do believe in a god, only it is a false one in my view.
Quote:Critical thinking leads to an acceptance of the scientific method for discovering knowledge of the natural world. Science requires evidence.
This, in turn, reinforces skepticism and critical thinking.
If you also contemplated critically how you critically think, and if you also were equally skeptical about your skepticism, I would say you are well balanced in your reasoning. Science however by it's current definition is a study of what is our physical world and how it works. To trust in science for answers to the meaning of our existence, would not address the issue.

Please enlighten me as to the god I believe in. Bowing

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-07-2013, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2013 03:26 AM by Filox.)
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(15-07-2013 11:41 AM)childeye Wrote:  
cjlr Wrote:Assuming you are speaking for all atheists and I knowing I shouldn't assume, I will say that it is not reason at all. That is a conclusion made without reason. As you imagine that all gods are figments of man's imaginations, you are imagining not reasoning. Reasoning requires considering the opposing points equitably. Hence I find atheism a fundamental contradiction in reasoning and logic, even as I assume you know what you are talking about concerning atheism.

Oh, you're going to have to do better than that...

There is absolutely no evidence for any supernatural agency in the real world, up to an including god(s). There are no events, explainable by supernatural means, which are not, at minimum, equally explicable by purely natural means. Further, supernatural explanations admit of no useful predictions by definition. Therefore not believing in such existence is perfectly reasonable.
The problem is that what we might call a supernatural agency would apply to a person carrying a flashlight back in the dark ages. To apply the term supernatural to God is already imagining without any proof. At one time people thought the earth was flat and that was reasonable. Therefore the term supernatural is taking liberty with what and Who God is with no proof. The word supernatural does not even occur in scripture.


cjlr Wrote:The deist prime-mover figure - for which there is an arguable case - fits no definition of God beyond the trivial. It does not intervene. It does not direct. It is not even necessarily supernatural. We literally don't know for sure - that's the point - but it bears absolutely no resemblence to the far more elaborate, far more extensive, far more detailed, far more contradictory, and far more falsifiable claims made by any established religion.
You make my point above in some ways better than I do. However I would say that certain facts can be ascertained from the trivial. Computer code is simply 0's and 1's, something is there or not there. All of theology is essentially simply discerning darkness and Light. Also, you have concluded that the power that created could not intervene nor direct. I think that is an extreme reach without any basis whatsoever.

cjlr Wrote:You've stated your own - ah, interesting - theology, and it is quite obvious that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is not reasonable.

I believe it is completely reasonable. You seem intelligent. The premise that we experience Life and death for a purpose beyond this universe is not unreasonable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2013 01:25 PM by childeye.)
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(15-07-2013 11:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, you're going to have to do better than that...

There is absolutely no evidence for any supernatural agency in the real world, up to an including god(s). There are no events, explainable by supernatural means, which are not, at minimum, equally explicable by purely natural means. Further, supernatural explanations admit of no useful predictions by definition. Therefore not believing in such existence is perfectly reasonable.
The problem is that what we might call a supernatural agency would apply to a person carrying a flashlight back in the dark ages. To apply the term supernatural to God is already imagining without any proof. At one time people thought the earth was flat and that was reasonable. Therefore the term supernatural is taking liberty with what and Who God is with no proof. The word supernatural does not even occur in scripture.


Quote:The deist prime-mover figure - for which there is an arguable case - fits no definition of God beyond the trivial. It does not intervene. It does not direct. It is not even necessarily supernatural. We literally don't know for sure - that's the point - but it bears absolutely no resemblence to the far more elaborate, far more extensive, far more detailed, far more contradictory, and far more falsifiable claims made by any established religion.
Well said. You make my point above in some ways better than I do. However I would say that certain facts can be ascertained from the trivial. Computer code is simply 0's and 1's, something is there or not there. All of theology is essentially simply discerning darkness and Light. To say there is no Light is already to discern is already dismissing the trivial. Also, you have concluded that the power that created could not intervene nor direct. I think that is an extreme reach without any basis whatsoever.

Quote:You've stated your own - ah, interesting - theology, and it is quite obvious that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is not reasonable.

I believe it is completely reasonable. You seem intelligent. The premise that we experience Life and death for a purpose beyond this universe is not unreasonable. It's the difference between what is hope and futile. [/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 01:27 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2013 01:32 PM by Chas.)
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(15-07-2013 01:19 PM)childeye Wrote:  
Quote:You've stated your own - ah, interesting - theology, and it is quite obvious that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is not reasonable.

I believe it is completely reasonable. You seem intelligent. The premise that we experience Life and death for a purpose beyond this universe is not unreasonable. It's the difference between what is hope and futile.

It is unreasonable because it is not supported by any evidence. It is purely wishful thinking.

Life's purpose and joys are for us to create. Take responsibility - grow up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-07-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(15-07-2013 01:19 PM)childeye Wrote:  The premise that we experience Life and death for a purpose beyond this universe is not unreasonable.

Why yes, yes it is.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
15-07-2013, 01:33 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(15-07-2013 12:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-07-2013 10:50 AM)childeye Wrote:  I have no problem understanding that so long as I understand what your interpretation of the term god is. I do not define God the same. Hence to me you do believe in a god, only it is a false one in my view.
If you also contemplated critically how you critically think, and if you also were equally skeptical about your skepticism, I would say you are well balanced in your reasoning. Science however by it's current definition is a study of what is our physical world and how it works. To trust in science for answers to the meaning of our existence, would not address the issue.

Please enlighten me as to the god I believe in. Bowing
The god of no gods. the philosophy of humanism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(15-07-2013 01:33 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(15-07-2013 12:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please enlighten me as to the god I believe in. Bowing
The god of no gods.

That's just silly.Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(15-07-2013 01:28 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(15-07-2013 01:19 PM)childeye Wrote:  The premise that we experience Life and death for a purpose beyond this universe is not unreasonable.

Why yes, yes it is.
Why?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 01:38 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(15-07-2013 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-07-2013 01:33 PM)childeye Wrote:  The god of no gods.

That's just silly.Drinking Beverage
Yes, I agree. Hence we have a difference in interpreting what the term God means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2013, 01:41 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
Just a heads up that you might want to fix your quote tags...

(15-07-2013 01:15 PM)childeye Wrote:  The problem is that what we might call a supernatural agency would apply to a person carrying a flashlight back in the dark ages.

Except, not at all. The supernatural refers not merely to what we do not understand but what we can not. By its very nature, as it were. A flashlight is entirely explicable by natural means. It is by definition not supernatural.

(15-07-2013 01:15 PM)childeye Wrote:  To apply the term supernatural to God is already imagining without any proof. At one time people thought the earth was flat and that was reasonable. Therefore the term supernatural is taking liberty with what and Who God is with no proof. The word supernatural does not even occur in scripture.

Again you bring up scripture; what is scripture? How do you know what is and what isn't?

Further: as soon as one can see a horizon it is no longer reasonable to believe the Earth is flat. As soon as one can see a lunar eclipse it is no longer reasonable to believe the Earrth is flat. Indeed, as soon as one can travel several hundred kilometres in a measured way it is provably not so.

The supernatural is what cannot be explained by natural means. That is its definition. The cosmos as we know it could not have been initiated by anything we know of within it; nature is the cosmos and therefore in one sense cosmogeny is always supernatural.

(15-07-2013 01:15 PM)childeye Wrote:  You make my point above in some ways better than I do. However I would say that certain facts can be ascertained from the trivial. Computer code is simply 0's and 1's, something is there or not there.

Computer science proceeds from several foundational axioms. Indeed, so does all of mathematics. It is even provably true that not all true statements are provable! Although - these things are merely theoretical human constructs. They are used as tools to conceptualize the universe around us. At no point in this process has the inclusion of, or even allowance for, the supernatural contributed anything meaningful to that process.

(15-07-2013 01:15 PM)childeye Wrote:  All of theology is essentially simply discerning darkness and Light.

With the caveat that, at the very least, darkness and light are not being defined in a physical sense. I suppose they are being defined in a spiritual sense? In which case, the supernatural existence of a spiritual sense is again presupposed. The only theological claim which may be made with a straight face is the existence of a deist prime mover (and that's barely theological as it is).

(15-07-2013 01:15 PM)childeye Wrote:  Also, you have concluded that the power that created could not intervene nor direct. I think that is an extreme reach without any basis whatsoever.

No, I have concluded that based on a very sound basis. That basis is the fact that it has never once been observed or detected to have done so. Ever. In all of history and in all of the known universe, there has never once been a single divine interaction; a single event attributable solely to divine intervention. That is an eminently rational, reasonable claim - and it is 100% falsifiable. It could be proven wrong at any time. I wouldn't put any money that way, mind...

(15-07-2013 01:15 PM)childeye Wrote:  I believe it is completely reasonable. You seem intelligent. The premise that we experience Life and death for a purpose beyond this universe is not unreasonable.

The premise is unreasonable, because there is no reason to think so. It is fallacious to presuppose any meaning.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: