Bullshit. They don’t brush them off, they just don’t attribute them to a God. If you’re as up on science as you claim, you’d know that “the miracle of life, the universe and everything” have been the subjects of scientific inquiry for quite some time now, and will continue to be so for as long as science is around (I’m not trying to set up science and religion as opposites, or claiming science is by definition the sole property of athiests; just pointing out that these questions are being addressed in a non-religious manner). Since you mentioned superstring theory, I imagine you’ve heard of the Big Bang theory also, right? How you disregard this as an attempt to explain the origin of the universe or equate it with turtles piled up into infinity (or whatever point you were trying to make; your posts seem pretty muddled to me) or claim this is somehow intellectual laziness for not taking a Supreme Creator into account (which is another thing I’ve always had trouble understanding: if you find it necessary to have a creator, doesn’t it follow that the creator had to have a creator? Either there’s a point at which there is no prior creator - as is the case with belief in the Christian God as well as the Big bang theory - or the creators have to go back infinitely, much like your turtles, right?) baffles me.
I think it’s telling that the three people in this thread who are shouting the loudest about what atheists believe are the three people who have demonstrated that they have not clue one about how atheists think.
Scylla, whether it was your intention or not, your comment about meatpuppets was pretty insulting. My GF’s mother died last July, and I attended the funeral. I cried my eyes out. I most certainly did not dismiss her as a malfunctioning meatpuppet. For you to suggest otherwise seriously undermines your credibility on the subject. If you honestly think that’s what happens, then it’s clear that you are far from an authority on the subject.
I think you’re overstating the case here. We have no reason to believe that it’s impossible to describe and explain the existence of the universe by non-magical processes. And the fact that so much that was once mysterious is now explicable is a sign pointing in that direction. BUT, we have not yet actually done so, and may never do so, so I think it’s premature to treat it as fait accompli.
I didn’t say it was. I’m not saying we have explained everything definitively, only that we can posit plausible explanations for everything, and as long as we can posit natural explanations, there is no necessity to posit the supernatural.
You know, I don’t think Scylla et al are stupid - they just seem incapable of understanding a world where there is no deity. I’m not saying for certain that we live in one, but i’m saying that you cannot even imagine such a place. It’s very disturbing to see such a lack of empathy and understanding.
On the whole meatpuppet thing (which i have to agree, is extremely unpleasant - I really think you owe us an apology on that one) try to imagine this;
You believe in God. You, the part of you that thinks, has emotions, etc is your soul. I have one of those too, i’d hope you agree - as do all the other atheists on this board. Right?
I don’t believe in God. I, the part of me that thinks, has emotions, etc is my brain. You have one of those too.
General question to all theists; is it possible for you to imagine that the thing you call a “soul” is not a spiritual part of you, but biologically based?
However, this does not stop people from proclaiming themselves an atheist and then treating it like one. Now of course there is no central doctrine of faith or organization that could send out a memo to atheists letting them know that its not a religion, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some common biases that many atheists share that are completely dumbass, and need to be pointed out as religious dogma even though that’s not what atheism is.
So while Atheism isn’t a religion by definition, that doesn’t stop people from making it into one.
Maybe you’d do better to point out to the evangelical atheists who aren’t making any sense, that what they are proposing is stupid. Show them the error of their ways, and then the rest of us will be less annoyed by the evangelical atheists and won’t talk about them as much as they enter our lives less often, as there are less of them.
I still see a line of division drawn. I rarely see an atheist take Der Trihs to task for being a dumbass, and he’s almost always being a dumbass, spouting some dumbass unproveable shit, yet you rarely see an atheist asking him for a cite on his unprovable assertion. However, if I make an assertion that I don’t back up, I suddenly have atheists congregating like horseflies gleefully pointing out that my assertion is unprovable. Its that sort of unconscious solidarity that really gets me. If Atheism truly didn’t have some kind of dogmatic groupthink, you’d see atheists calling Der Trihs on his ass-hattery more often.
Erek
In this thread I’ve learned that simply having an opinion about the existence of some god qualifies as a religion, and I am now very interested in leveraging that information into tax exempt status.
I hang around my house all the time, and contemplate the existence of gods on occasion, therefore I’m sure my house qualifies as a church. After all, a religion doesn’t need ceremonies, or moral codes, or group participation. And it’s good to know that some of the fine, God fearing members of SDMB will back me up in this matter.
And hey, it’s also great to find out that some good Christian people here believe chimpanzees have immortal souls, since those creature have been reported to experience depression due to the death of other chimpanzees. It is, after all, impossible to have an emotional reaction to death unless a soul is involved somehow.
:o
~Baal~
No I cannot agree with this, it’s a false dichotomy. I like to think of the soul as the mortar between the spiritual and biological. One of the most common, to my mind, misconceptions is this idea that spirit and matter are not intrinsically intertwined. We are a whole creature, made up of matter, spirit and soul, and there isn’t a definable point where one becomes the other, they are all infused together, like an alloy.
Erek
Are you sure you’re using that term correctly?
And if souls and matter are intertwined, how is the soul not a biological function?
I wasn’t asking if you thought it was true - I was asking whether you could imagine such a thing. Your reply seems to indicate you can’t, as it was a pretty simple, straightforward question.
Let’s have another go: is it possible for you to imagine that the thing you call a “soul” is not a spiritual part of you, but biologically based?
Someone call?
Well put, Femm. That works for most people. However, it looks like Shodan, MS, etc. have heard an atheist make the statement that “God does not exist” in the past, and assumes that all atheists say that, or say via the virtue of their being atheist.
Well, let’s say a street preacher approaches me, and claims that God loves me. (God here meaning the Christian god. One reply might be to tear up the literature he just handed me, and walk away. Another reply might be to state that god does not exist, and when I say God, I mean the Christian god. If he argues with me, rather than walking away, I will proceed to show how the Biblical god makes no sense. (Problem of evil, God not actually meaning a moral creature, Job being an S&M story, the bible being a corruption of earlier books, etc.)
Thus, I have not made any statement that can not be proven. The trouble comes when someone hears me discussing the non-existence of (the Christian) god, and assumes I am making some sort of position claim about god, defined in their eyes as some sort of form of the Universe, based on their own wishful thinking. Obviously, I can not say that god does not exist, when the word god refers to some non-well-defined concept. So I don’t.
Debating you is useless, but . . .
Now, Der Trish has said, time and time again, that there is no god, as per my above example. Big fucking deal. Reality check: Last time I looked, there were more atheists in American than Jews. If there was a atheist groupthink, don’t you think we would have BIG lobbying firms working with us, re: the First Amendment actually being honored?
I am reading your posts, and am getting frustrated at your apparent inability to answer a direct question with a direct answer. This is particularly annoying as it is clear to me that, while I suspect you and I would disagree more often than not, you are a very smart guy who is capable of well-reasoned discourse. So I am going to ask a series of questions that I assume you would answer ‘yes’ to. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Are you a Christian?
Is your God the only God?
Is it therefore your belief that Zeus does not exist?
Do you positively assert that Zeus does not exist?
Does this make you a dogmatic, fundamentalist atheist?
Of course I do not expect you to answer ‘yes’ to the last question, but in light of this–
–I am compelled to ask ‘why not?’
Ok, now I’m confused as to my, um, “religious beliefs.”
This is primarilly directed to FinnAgain and Diogenes (or anyone else who is on the same page)-- a philosophical moment.
I agree, epistemologically, that the existence or non-existence of a God is unknowable. So I suppose I’m agnostic in that sense of the word.
I also agree that, epistemologically, it is impossible to know whether there is indeed an 800 pound invisible ostrich that reads classical Greek, bedecked with colorful sequins and beating an inaudible golden tambourine, sitting next to me on my futon-couch. Likewise (does this make me a skeptic?) I don’t think that the existence or non-existence of ANYTHING can be known beyond a doubt. In epistemological terms, of course.
However, I don’t reckon the existences of those two options are of equal probability --Occam’s Razor, etc. I don’t think that a God (any of them, although Dionysis sounds like fun at a party) or the ostrich is necessary in this great big lovely awe-inspiring closed system of ours. And I’ve thought about it quite a bit. I can’t KNOW that a God doesn’t exist, but I really don’t think one does. Does this make me an. . . agnostic with atheistic leanings? An atheist with insufficient faith? What’s an agnostic who dopesn’t believe the unknowability of a God makes his probablity of existence equal to its probability of not-existing, like any other unknowable object? Why does God get the special treatment?
I think truth is truth and eventually what we discover as scientific truth will be the same as spiritual truth. Things we have religious terms for now may have other terms for.
I’ve had a couple of pretty profound experiences which has led me to believe there is something more than what we are aware of so far that we have access to if we learn how. {but you knew that}
I’ve read enough about certain chemicals in the brain and the stimulus of the God helmet to imagine that the profound feelings of well being, peace, love, may be just these chemical reactions. Thats a feeling. What I wonder about is where deep insight, a moment of clarity where you know things suddenly, comes from.
So, I guess the short answer is yes, I can imagine it.
God doesn’t. Atheism is a privative response to theism. Some people have god beliefs. Some are without them.
You seem to be an atheist agnostic. That is, you don’t know anything one way or the other about God’s existence, and hence you don’t believe in God (you also probably don’t believe that there is definately no God either). Some atheists claim to be gnostic in regards to God: they claim to know that they KNOW there can’t be a God. You aren’t like that. And frankly, I’d say that very very very few atheists really are (some even though they might think they are, because they have their concepts of existence and logical truth mixed up), religious propaganda to the contrary.
I don’t think that God should get any special treatment. In the last thread it was metacom, I think, who went berserk when it was pointed out that there was no more support for God than pixies. It seems some-but-not-all theists demand that their God be taken as something approaching a given and then debated on their turf. Why we would afford that to the modern God and not Thor or the Green Man is beyond me.
As for what you’d be called, I posited in the other thread:
That seems fairly accurate. Someone lacking a belief in a God is, correctly, called an atheist. An atheist who says that via the theist definition, the concept of God is beyond proof or refutation is thus taking up an agnostic position.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
I think it’s also necessary to parse those atheists who hold to the null hypothesis and believe that the most likely answer is that there is no God (and might express that by saying “there is no God”) vs those atheists who are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only is there not a God, but that there cannot possibly be a God.
We don’t brush them off, we’re working on them. And theists have the same problem. Imagine God is a line (x=1). The standard response to “Who created God?” is that he has always existed. What the question means however is not “What’s the first point on the line?” but “How can you have a coordinate system in which this line can exist in the first place?” And science has the same problem. No matter what time is, there will always be the problem in how things started. Why should anything exist at all when not existing is so much easier?
Actually I have to say that the question is unanswerable. No matter what answer anyone proposes, grounded or spiritual, the question then transfers itself to the answer and we’re left puzzled again. I think religious people refuse to ask that question since they know there’s no answer that wouldn’t violate their beliefs.
Revenant Threshhold
Ok. You may be right. What we think of as soul may simply be biological function. The old “Ghost in the Machine” debate. Tom Wolfe has an interesting and definitive take on this Sorry, your soul just died
Well worth the read.
Interesting argument. I disagree. Complexity does not necessarily make something better. In fact, quite the opposite. Something is better when it is as simple as can be considering the task at hand. I can think of many circumstances in which an abacus is preferable to a computer, and certainly you would agree that a good abacus is better than a bad computer.
Diogenes the Cynic
To play Plato to your Socrates, “But teacher, surely that can’t be it! What you say suggests that atheism is a totally selfish system in which the worth of others is measured only by your feelings towards them. What if your emotional responses are different? If you hate somebody, wouldn’t it be ok to kill them, because it would make you happy if they were gone? I know you can’t mean this. People must have an intrinsic worth of their own regardless of your feelings towards them, don’t they?”
Ok. So is pooping. Why is empathy particularly noteworthy?
Pochacco
Ok, Biological response.
Well, it is hoped that our grief is tempered by the good news that the departed has gone on to a better place. It’s a consolation.
The “dousing of a unique flame” though is interesting. It suggests an aesthetic.
Apos
Well, if my innocuous opinion is inherently insulting to some, and they choose to take offense over such minor a quibble, than they are not people who’s opinions particularly matter to me.
It makes sense if you see how I defined my terms. To repeat, an atheist is someone who espouses the viewpoint that there is no God. An agnostic doubts or is skeptical. The good ole dictionary seems to back up my usage.
I consider atheism as I’ve defined it, a religion because it makes a positive statement about God. “No. There is no God.”
Really though, that statement can’t be made conclusively. It is unknowable in this life, and maybe forever. Agnosticism understands this and simply doubts, is skeptical, or concludes that the nonexistance of God is the preferred explanation re: occam’s razor. A leap of faith is required to go beyond this and make the positive statement that there is no God. That’s why I consider atheism a religion and agnosticism not.
I suspect that much of our disagreement stems from terminology used. I have defined my terms and the dictionary backs me up.
Ok, then I’m an agnostic who beleives in the existance of God.
Oh please. People cut on Christianity and religion and beliefs all the time. If you’r too sensitive to discuss it without getting offended than don’t discuss it.
I haven’t walked into a funeral home. It’s a discussion in the pit. Your analogy is stupid. It’s like saying your Christianity is akin to walking into a Church and throwing the communion wafers on the floor. Hyperbole much?
It is arbitrary, and it’s only usefullness logically is to give meaning to action. As an atheist or an agnostic you may not see the need for it. In a disussion like this I can’t see what’s so terrible about asking about the rationale you use instead.
You seem to be wearing your offensibility like armour, so maybe it’s best we don’t continue this discussion. I’m getting tired of responding to your bruised sensibilities. No hard feelings.
The Gaspode
Atheism is just an opinion, and unprovable. It doesn’t carry any more weight than anybody else’s.
Miller
That’s kind of circular, but looks like a third vote for biological cause.
Ok, like Diogenes you seem to be saying that their value is how you feel about them. Do they have any intrinsic value beyond that of say, an ant?
You’re responding to an argument I haven’t made. I haven’t said you didn’t feel these things. I asked how you rationalize them.
Blacknight
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence. Miller’s really doesn’t answer my question any more satisfactorily, than a “because!” answers a “why.”
Testy
Lucky for me I didn’t say or argue anything like that, nor do I beleive it.
Max the Vool
Seems extremely reasonable.
Sounds like your an agnostic as I, and Websters seem to define it.
You may be right. On the other side of the coin though, I, as a Catholic may have little in common, no culture, no community, different rituals, and different guidelines than a Catholic in say, Ethiopa.
Yet, we are both Catholics because of our common beleifset. That is what defines our religion, our beleifset towards God.
Atheists would share the common beleifset that God does not exist and that all other religions are therefore wrong. They are positive about this stance in spite of the fact that it is unproveable. They may evangelize or feel they have a superior perspective because of it.
Sounds like a religion to me.
An agnostic though really has no beleifset, so agnosticism would not be a religion.
Ever heard of “Zero.” Ever drink decaffeinated coffee? Sugarless gum? A vaccuum?
It’s not silly at all.
The group of people who don’t follow football would be agnostic.
The group of people that refuse to recognize either team as “football,” because football means soccer would be atheists. 
Fair.
Well, shit. Why not?
Testy
It’s not an intent any more than to seem intent to insist 2+2=4. I might as well ask, what’s the objection you have to the categorization?
Your religion is like your politics, your shoe size, or what have you. If you don’t have one then your religion is none. If you have a firm beleif that’s your religion.
An atheist does make a claim that they can’t prove is they make the positive assertion that God does not exist.
You would be foolish to make such a claim. Science an logic dictate the opposite.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Faith, actually, but yes. You’re making a strawman to suggest otherwise.
Revenant Threshold
You have it wrong. I can understand a world without a deity. In fact, it’s easier for me to understand such a world than it is to understand one with a deity. To me, such a world is simpler, makes more sense, is rational…
but it also seems somewhat worthless. I’m not saying that it is. Or that’s how your life is. I’m saying that’s how it would seem to me.
What I’m trying to ask about are the rational and emotional underpinnings and the their logic that makes it make sense and be acceptable to you.
I think it’s unpleasant, too.
You mean, imagine that I’m wrong and we have no spiritual part? Yes that is easy to imagine. I might very well be wrong. In fact, the smart money is on it, IMO.
I’m going with that, because I think that was the question you were asking. I’ll answer another way, too.
I define the soul as that supernatural part. If it doesn’t exist, there is no soul, only biology. I concede that you can explain life perfectly fine without the need to torture logic with “souls.”
Is that a good answer?
We are basically in agreement except for some details and the conclusion. I also believe that people greatly overestimate our little ape brains and the physical perspective we are stuck with (we are tiny and can only perceive three dimensions as well as only a tiny sliver of time). I do follow physics closely as best I can but even the smartest humans in our terms may be very limited. They are like the slightly smarter of the ants stuck in an ant farm. Still, Steven Hawking considers himself an agnostic and maybe even Einstein did too.
It is basically a “True wisdom is when you realize that you know nothing” thing for me. The universe is turning out to be so strange from what we discover that I just don’t trust any grand conclusion about how it all works from people who seem to be concluding “we were born, we just are, and we die” especially when they aren’t even aware of some of the grand, strange discoveries science itself is making and proposing. I consider that ignorance even if the conclusion turns out to be right.
For all I know, the universe may be conscious itself or be part or of a larger system that is conscious. Our world is in the middle of the scale between very small and very large systems. We know of systems that are much smaller like atoms and subatomic particles and we can also solar systems and galaxies organized into complex system. I am not saying any of this is right but it does make it impossible for me to understand this whole system and where it is going.
God could take many different forms aside from the form that most organized religions assign to it when they get to the detailed level. That makes me a true agnostic and therefore, intellectually superior to any atheist by definition.