Does Ath*ism have a future? NO!

[artanis]

Man this post is silly.

 

There is no evidence that any religion has ever had a real true actual GOD. People made **** up when they were too dumb to understand how the world worked, and now stupid people today STILL believe it. Awesome.

 

Atheism isn't necessarily the end-all-be-all truth, but I find it a lot easier to swallow than some **** about how evil it is to rub one out when I'm in the mood.

[Pyrotex]

Man this post is silly....

thank you! :P

 

It was intended to be silly.

 

OY! :shrug:

[coldcreation]

You omit a group of atheists that claim to "know" there is/are no god(s). Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the existence of this group in his Spectrum of Theistic Probability. Here he acknowledges at one end of the spectrum, milestone 1, that there are people who claim not just to believe in god(s) but to say they "know" there is a god. At the other end, milestone 7, there are people who claim not just a lack of belief but that they "know" there is no god. For this reason he calls himself a 6, one who believes god is improbable and lives their life as if one doesn't exist. He stops short of labeling himself a 7 as do I and I would challenge anyone that claims to be a 7 to prove how they can "know" there is no god(s) with any proof other than faith. I suspect they would have as much evidence as the guy that claims to know there is a God, none, nada, zilch. Position 7 is one of faith for it cannot be proven in any way.

 

 

Actually, Dawkins describes himself closer to 7 than to 6 on the scale: "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 — I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." That puts him around to 6.8, edit: or 6.9 from what I've heard and read online.

 

Dawkins notes (as I have above), that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7."

 

See the same link you provided above Dawkins' formulation: Spectrum of theistic probability

 

 

 

With a quick search, I did run into a 7 online. Check this out:

 

Yes I can say there is no God: An open letter to atheists

 

I frequently run into atheists who spout the politically correct dictum that we cannot KNOW there is no god; we see no evidence for one, so we believe that no gods exist — but we remain agnostic to the possiblity because we have integrity and are openminded to true evidence, should it arise.

 

Well, I think that’s just bullsh*t coated with a dressing of the fear of being accused of being an absolutist.

 

[...]

 

Addendum: There is a difference between common usage of the word 'know' and formal or epistemological use of the concept of 'absolute knowledge'. From that standpoint, we can not even truly state we know we exist! I do not claim to have absolute knowledge or even believe it exists. I do, however, state I know there is no god as comfortably as I state I know I exist.

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

Well, I think that’s just bullsh*t coated with a dressing of the fear of being accused of being an absolutist.....

 

And that's what it boils down to. He "thinks" it's BS. That's the whole problem with religions in general. Every time someone thinks it means something else a new one is born. What one "thinks" about something does not necessarily equate to what we "know" about it.

 

I'm in about the same boat as Dawkins, about a 6.8 or better. I would actually say I believe there is a god about as much as I believe there is a Lazy Boy recliner in orbit around Pluto. That this probability is so infinitesimal as to not exist but as soon as I say I "know" some critic says "prove it" so instead I say I don't believe there is one because the only proof I have for the critic is faith that there's not one out there. I'm the same way, if someone say's this or that is not possible I say, "prove it" and then it's their burden to support their claim.

 

Then again, faith is not always a negative thing. I have faith that I will not float off into outer space. That gravity will continue to work even if we can't prove how it works. I also do not consider my faith in gravity to be a religion :confused:

[Moontanman]

What, you've never heard of the theory of Intelligent Falling? I have to admit that although i see no evidence of God what so ever there is still the possibility no matter how small there really is a God. I can't see any way around that tiny possibility.

[freeztar]

When I met C1ay a while back, this very subject came up. He asked me where I stood on belief. This is not easy to answer, but the questions asked made me verbalize my beliefs. After he asked a few questions, he said, "you are an agnostic-atheist". At the time, this seemed a contradiction of terms and confused me a bit. Of course, I went home and looked it up. Sure enough, that's where I lie in the spectrum of belief and I can thank him for finally pointing me to a label that makes sense.

 

The gist of it is that I don't believe in God, but I don't entirely rule out the possibility. That's it. End of story.

 

What constantly reminds me of this is people that want to press their beliefs onto me. It gets to the point of salesmanship. I have people knock on my door about once a month asking me to repent and follow their way. If I kindly nod at them, accept their brochure, and close the door, no harm done on either side and that's it. If I tell them I think they are crazy and that God does not exist, then I better be prepared for an onslaught of change that aims to "convert" me to their beliefs. Such is life.

 

I would prefer the latter, but it's really not worth it. I can make my points until I'm blue in the face, but at the end of the day, neither "side" is more the wiser. It's just a waste of both of our times. As a corralary, I wouldn't ever knock on their doors and ask them to accept that the Easter bunny was responsible for crucifying Jesus. I would expect that they would turn me away quickly. Actually, I would really hope they would. (thanks C1ay for posting that Mormon video - I guess it's more poignant in the Bible-belt)

 

So, while I realize that their are 7.0 atheists out there (as well as 0.0 theists), I don't really think it is a wise use of time to try to change a 6.8 into a 7.0 or vice versa.

 

 

But while we're on the subject...:shrug:

 

The best argument I've received against atheism has been "love". This has been pointed out in this very thread already. Since love is ineffable, yet nonetheless real to those that experience it, faith can be considered in the same light. As an agnostic-atheist, I really don't have a good retort for that. Imho, it's different to love a tangible person than an intangible being, but at the end of the day, love is love. Love requires a certain faith. I would hope that most atheists agree with me here, but if not, I'd love to hear it. :shrug:

 

I think this is what Boerseun was getting at while describing his newborn daughter and I think this is what Craig was getting at with his unfortunate loss.

 

As scientifically-minded folk, we are well aware that mentality can affect results. My approach to this in life is to always have faith in positivity. When I feel a cold coming on, I try to squelch any uprising in my subconscious by telling myself that I've never felt better. Meanwhile, I'll pop a few vitamin C and drink some herbal tea. I believe that mind/matter is extremely powerful and it is something that can not be diagnosed with a scalpel, or with MRIs etc. I find comfort in knowing that this "belief" is not disputed by science. This is why there are multiple studies done involving different methodologies to try and isolate and extract those biases from the data. Having tried to write some upper-level thesis(s) for my specialty, I've learned to recognize the bad from the good (those that really eliminate the extraneous and those that subtlely utilize the bias). This is why I always examine the Methodology *first*.

 

The "take home" point is that this does not equate with a belief in something else, something outside of me. Reality is indisputable. If a tree crashes through my roof, I don't pray it away, I call a roofer. The upside is that I now have a canopy view from my living room.

 

While we fleetingly pass through this spacetime, it's best not to concern ourselves with planning for something that may or not be the future, or for that matter the past. We can only be here, and now.

 

And if that sounds Zen, then I guess at this moment, I'm there.

 

So, to the OP, why answer your own question?

Who cares?

 

I feel like I just ranted, so I'll stop now while I'm....ahead?

 

---

 

Oh, that's easy. You go down by the museum and stuff... It's like- it's, like, by the museum... Sorta by... Actually, not really. More like on the street, you go, um... Wait, let me start over. Okay, you know where the time machine is? :confused:

[C1ay]

When I met C1ay a while back, this very subject came up. He asked me where I stood on belief. This is not easy to answer, but the questions asked made me verbalize my beliefs. After he asked a few questions, he said, "you are an agnostic-atheist". At the time, this seemed a contradiction of terms and confused me a bit. Of course, I went home and looked it up. Sure enough, that's where I lie in the spectrum of belief and I can thank him for finally pointing me to a label that makes sense.

 

The gist of it is that I don't believe in God, but I don't entirely rule out the possibility. That's it. End of story.

 

Most people think agnosticism is a point somewhere in the middle of the axis of theism but it's really not. Theism is about a belief in deities. Agnosticism is about a belief in knowledge or lack there of; a belief that man can never "know" the absolute truth about certain things, particularly deities, that it is unknowable.

 

One can be agnostic and still believe in God. Such a person is an agnostic-theist. They believe that man can never "know" the absolute truth about deities but they still believe in them anyhow. One can just as easily be an agnostic-atheist and I consider myself one since I do not believe man could ever know the truth and I lack belief in deities.

 

About.com has a nice article on Atheism vs. Agnosticism for further information...

[freeztar]

Right. :confused:

 

Thanks for clarifying it further.

 

It's funny, because I told a friend several months ago that I was an "agnostic atheist". He said that it was one or the other. I told him that I don't believe there is a God. So, naturally, he said I was an atheist. When I told him I was also agnostic, his response was "ok, so you just don't know, so you are not atheist or theist, you are agnostic".

 

It seems to be a stopping point for some people. You are either/or. There is no room for "error".

 

I finally was able to explain this to him, at which point I have heard no argument against it since. It's the only logical approach, imho, but I understand and accept that faith causes others to lean more towards the theism side.

 

Nonetheless, the ontology of God is certainly an epistemological construct that precipitates agnosticism. Certainty is a sparse commodity in this universe.

[coldcreation]

Anyway, to make a long story short, and to answer that ridiculous OP:

 

Does atheism have a future?

 

YES!

 

And that future looks very Bright.

 

 

:confused:

 

 

 

CC

[Pyrotex]

What, you've never heard of the theory of Intelligent Falling? I have to admit that although i see no evidence of God what so ever there is still the possibility no matter how small there really is a God. I can't see any way around that tiny possibility.

That's the benefit of being a "3+i" atheist, don't you see?

You acknowledge that there might be this tiny chance that god is real,

but then you conclude that god must be too incompetent to take seriously.

And if you can't take him seriously, then he might as well not exist.

 

I love fuzzy logic.

[alexander]

Wow, i've been out of the loop here... catch up time :)

You omit a group of atheists that claim to "know" there is/are no god(s).

Thank you, these are the guys i have been talking about that CC seems to omit when constructing his arguments...

 

The misunderstandings expressed above

You state that there are misunderstandings expressed, as in multiple, and yet fail to point out what they are, even one...

 

I'm a 6 .... I'm a 3+i, where i is the square root of minus one

You are a man of math, yet you claim to be [math]6=3+\sqrt{-1}[/math], sooo you are not an equation? or are you some sort of a trick question...? or are you in a different base?

 

I would actually say I believe there is a god about as much as I believe there is a Lazy Boy recliner in orbit around Pluto

Hey, that sounds like a fun project...

[Tormod]

Discussions like this one tend to end up in a series of categorization posts where people label things and put people in various categories.

 

Oh, I see we're past that already.

 

-T (who considers himself a 7)

[CraigD]

A great source of difficulty, and fun, in a “who or what is or isn’t an atheist, theists, agnostic, or gnostic” roundtable discussion like this one, is the troublingly uncertain definitions of these key terms. Even if a consensus on the atheist-theist distinction, and a workable definition of “belief”, can be reached, we’re then stuck with the need for a definition of what that which isn’t or is believed to exist is, a venerable deep, tough question.

 

What I think C1ay’s hinting at with his “most people think agnosticism is a point somewhere in the middle of the axis of theism but it's really not”, and “agnosticism is about a belief in knowledge or lack there of” and which I think Dawkins misses badly with his single-axis Spectrum of Theistic Probability, is that, though statistically somewhat to strongly correlated, ones atheist-to-theist and agnostic-to-gnostic ratings are in fact independent. One, the theism axis, is a measure of what you believe, and how certain you are in your belief, while the other, the gnosticism axis, is a measure of how you are certain or not certain.

 

Consider the term Gnostic, and its root, gnosis. Gnosis, a Greek word, means essentially “a state of knowing”, with the implication of knowing in a supernatural fashion not dependent on the usual, sometimes conscious, sometimes not process of hypotheis-test-accept/discard/pend that we use to know mundane things, like “the water shutoff valve for my house is in the basement closet”. Gnosis is the direct, mystical apperception of truth. It’s assumed that most people can’t usually do it, at least not without a lot of special discipline and training, and that those who can rate titles like saint, guru, or demigod. Those who can’t experience gnosis are without gnosis, AKA agnostic. Religious traditions that encourage their followers to attempt to achieve gnosis, and base important decisions on knowledge obtained via it over knowledge obtained in a mundane manner, are known as Gnostic, though individual gnostics need not associate with any religious tradition, only believe that gnosis is a valid, in fact superior, way of gaining knowledge. This belief is Gnosticism, whether it’s believed by someone believes and/or is believed to have experienced gnosis or not.

 

Many major religious, especially Catholicism, consider Gnosticism heresy (except in the case of rare and especially holy people). According to these religious traditions, lack of doubt in the existence of its diety(s) is an intellectual or moral failing which undermines faith, because one who knows without doubt need not nor cannot exercise faith. Good Catholics must doubt God exists, yet, via the exercise of faith, accept it as true anyway. Catholics without such doubt are considered by other Catholics to be either holy or insane, and have complicated, clergy-managed procedures for distinguishing between the two.

 

With these concept of theism and gnosis, it’s possible to describe some regions – the quadrants – of a two-dimensional continuum defined by the theism and gnostic axes.

• Agnostic atheist: one who, through normal reason, intuition, trust in authority, etc, concludes that god(s) do not exist. Uncomplicated folk, like myself.
  
• Agnostic theist: one who, through normal reason, intuition, trust in authority, etc, concludes that god(s) do exist - or, more precisely, that the moral principles he concludes are best requires that he believe god(s) exist. Somewhat fundamentally perverse folk, such as Catholics.
  
• Gnostic atheist: one who, though an experience he believes without natural explanation, know with absolute certainly that god(s) do not exist. IMHO, total whack-jobs. (rethinking my previous categorization of myself, I may fall in this category, as I do tend to put a lot of faith in my intuition, especially as experienced in dreams)
  
• Gnostic theist: one who, though an experience he believes without natural explanation, know with absolute certainly that god(s) do exist. IMHO, total whack-jobs - though candidates for great honors from various religionists.
  

Of course, this continuum is continuous, so the place of most actual individuals wanders around its interior, possibly crossing quadrant boundaries at different times of their lives, or with changes in mood. Further complicating this is that theism and gnosis can, at present, be objectively measure, in the sense that height, mass, blood pressure, etc, can be, but must be taken from peoples self-reports. And as belief and doubt are, for many, deeply private matters, many are likely to baldly lie when self reporting them.

 

Once you’ve pegged an individual’s place on the theism-gnostic plane, another wrench is thrown into the works, because an otherwise respectable agnostic atheist, like the esteemed Albert Einstein, may chose to define God as something like “the God of Spinoza”, meaning essentially a symbol of the beauty, elegance, and order of the physical universe, as can be appreciated through the rigorous, methodical study of nature. In more modern terms, one (such as Einstein, were he still alive) might term God an emergent phenomena of the most fundamental laws of physics, known and unknown, knowable and unknowable.

 

To many respectable agnostic theists (and likely any of the rarer gnostic ones), this definition is about as sensible as some rhetorical wag’s claim that God is a big rock in his back yard (and who’s existence is thus plainly provable or disprovable by anyone who cares to look there). To them, a God or pantheon of gods who is not some sort of person(s) is worthless, because their worldview depends on God being able to do something (hopefully pleasant) to them, and for some religionists, hopefully or regretfully unpleasant to others, such as those who have wronged them or derided their religioun without any comeuppance in life.

 

For the sake of consensus and clarity, I don’t think believers in Spinoza’s God should use the G-word. Rather, they should confine themselves to less catchy terms, like “absolutely infinite substance”.

[Moontanman]

This is all so complex, can I just not believe and be done with it?

[Boerseun]

This is all so complex, can I just not believe and be done with it?

That's the beauty of religious discussions. You get so tangled up in irrelevant details that you tend to forget how bizarre and absurd the original question was.

 

The whole "God" concept is also very illustrative of human nature. We can't just invent a cipher of sorts on whom we can lay all our human insecurities, needs and fears. No, we have to invent an uber-deity that's mechanically responsible for the existence and layout of the entire universe. We can't have a God who's also subject to the laws of nature, we make a God that wrote the laws of nature. He's in all respects The Man. Or the Ultimate Alpha Male, if you will. And as our probing of nature continues down dark and scary alleys, his bailiwick becomes bigger and bigger by the minute.

 

Apes we are. Clever apes, though, I wonder sometimes...

[Tormod]

I have said this many times here at Hypo and maybe it's just too simple to be taken seriously. But there *are* people who simply have no relationship with "faith" at all. Religion is about *faith*, not just "belief".

 

Having grown up in a completely non-theistic family, it has never even been about choice or reason. I simply don't live in a world where gods exist.

 

So I can't call myself an agnostic - I have never "reasoned" away from faith.

 

The dual axis which CraigD suggests above is interesting but it starts off from the same assumption as most other arguments in this type of discussion: That "faith" is the starting point and everything is measured in degree of faith (little-much, religious faith vs atheistic faith).

 

IMHO it would be more "scientific" (sorry, I know this is not a scientific discussion) to start at a zero point in which non-faith is the basis, and then measure things like "ability to believe", "sense of faith", "degree of religiousness". It might help create a better classification. At least I have never seen a study claiming that human beings are born with faith.

 

Why do we *always* have discussions where the starting point is that "we all believe, period". That is *not* an accepted truth. Yet we end up with a giant bear hug and claim "okay so we do believe but we believe differently and thus we can't really compare after all". Then we start over. Every time. :eek2:

 

I believe nothing can be done about that... ;)

[coldcreation]

I have said this many times here at Hypo and maybe it's just too simple to be taken seriously. But there *are* people who simply have no relationship with "faith" at all. Religion is about *faith*, not just "belief".

 

Having grown up in a completely non-theistic family, it has never even been about choice or reason. I simply don't live in a world where gods exist.

 

So I can't call myself an agnostic - I have never "reasoned" away from faith.

 

The dual axis which CraigD suggests above is interesting but it starts off from the same assumption as most other arguments in this type of discussion: That "faith" is the starting point and everything is measured in degree of faith (little-much, religious faith vs atheistic faith).

 

IMHO it would be more "scientific" (sorry, I know this is not a scientific discussion) to start at a zero point in which non-faith is the basis, and then measure things like "ability to believe", "sense of faith", "degree of religiousness". It might help create a better classification. At least I have never seen a study claiming that human beings are born with faith.

 

Why do we *always* have discussions where the starting point is that "we all believe, period". That is *not* an accepted truth. Yet we end up with a giant bear hug and claim "okay so we do believe but we believe differently and thus we can't really compare after all". Then we start over. Every time. :eek2:

 

I believe nothing can be done about that... ;)

 

Excellent post!

 

Brilliant even.

 

Just out of curiosity I search-engined absolute scale for faith, and didn't come up with much at all.

 

There was, however, one article that relates to the idea expressed above, entitled: Absolute Truth and the Shadow of Doubt (1948) by Gardner Williams.

 

Note the illustration, where Truth, Belief, Probability and Conviction are plotted on absolute scales, varying between 0% and 100%, and where propositions are represented by four points located on each of the four scales:

 

Its interpretation involves the ultimate problems as to the nature and limitations of human knowledge. [...] (1) How far do variations in any one concept influence the others, and how far are the concepts mutually independent? (2) How far is each concept absolute or universal, and how far is it relative to an individual point of view?

 

See other related works by Gardner Williams here.

 

 

 

My own conviction on this matter is that, as with the Kelvins temperature scale, perhaps for different reasons, absolute zero, is likely unattainable. Though one can venture exceedingly close to zero.

 

In another way, luminaries like R. Dawkins approach the zero value for faith, or belief (or lack of rather), but do not actually attain this value, since, there must remain an element of doubt, however small, pending the possibility that one day evidence might present itself in favor of some supernatural occurrence, phenomena, manifestation or so on.

 

It could even be plotted on a scale compatible with Orders of magnitude (temperature), where zero belief would be unattainable due to a residual zero-point doubt that cannot be entirely eliminated.

 

Its interesting, too, to seek parallels on the other end of the scale, where belief or faith would be at some maxima or threshold (beyond which everything, even god, breaks down).

 

Or maybe, both extremes are attainable, who knows?

 

 

 

CC