No, I’m not assuming it based on Christian concepts, actually. I simply cannot attribute the complexity and beauty of the physical universe to what could happen by physics mixed with coincidence & chance. I am like you in this regard…if someone were to offer me compelling evidence that this could all happen without a divine plan, I would be happy to consider it. Until then, I have to assume there is something greater then I could ever truly conceive of who could make all of this happen.
I think this depends on how you define atheism. It clearly is not being consitently used here.
- “I know/can prove them christians/muslims/buddhists/fundies/scientologists are wrong about god.”
- “I know/can prove there are no gods.”
- “I believe there are no gods.”
- “I believe there are no gods, but can’t prove it.”
- “No opinion, still can’t prove it.”
- “I know/can prove that nobody can prove whether there’s a god.”
- “I believe that nobody can prove whether there’s a god.”
- “I believe that there’s probable a god or gods, but can’t prove it.”
- “I believe there is a God (and that it has specific properties, too!), but can’t prove it.”
- “I believe there is a God (and that it has specific properties, too!)”
- “I know/can prove there is a god (and that it has specific properties, too!)”
In my understanding, 2-3 (and maybe 4) are atheistic positions, 4-9 are agnostic, and 10-11 (and maybe 8 and 9) are theistic positions. If you disagree, feel free to post a link to the reputable online dictionary of your preference to support your position, but keep in mind it doesn’t effect the rest of my argument much.
Firstly, 3 and 4 are clearly positions of belief (as are 7, 8, 9, and 10). The reasoning behind this assertion I leave as an exersize to the reader.
Everyone takes position 1, even though it is most famously demonstrated by self-declared atheists with axes to grind. Still, everyone thinks somebody else is wrong. That alone doesn’t make you an atheist.
There are people who assert that they hold position 2. I think that they they’re self-delusionsal or mistaken in their thinking; it is after all trivial to postulate a non-disprovable God. Any theorized god who never has interacted with mankind (living mankind or earthy remains thereof, anyway) is non-disprovable. Logical arguments professing to support position 2 are fallacious; arguments about specific gods are merely position 1 in action, which does not inherently support or refute position 2.
I assert that position 2 is actually position 3 in denial. My support for this assertion is the previous paragraph. I also previously asserted that postion 3 is a belief. So, if you think you hold positions 2, 3, or 4 (as in, if you’re an atheist) then your position on religion is based on an unproven (nay, unprovable) belief.
Ergo it’s reasonable to call it a religious belief.
(And while I’m on logic, “I believe in god A with specific properties that exclude belief in other gods, and my belief in God A leads me to disbelieve in god B” is not a circular argument. “I believe in god A with specific other poperties, and my belief in God A leads me to believe in god A” is a circular argument. See the difference? The first argument is logically equivalent to “I believe there are no gods, and my disbelief in gods leads me to disbelieve in god B”)
And, while the belief that there are no gods is hardly a comprehensive belief system in and of itself, I’ve noticed that it’s also commonly accompanied by a belief in the absence of an afterlife, the absence of a judgement, the absence of non-societal universal moral code, the absence of magic and magical powers, the absence of sporadic events that appear to contradict science, and the predominant reliability of science in general, even thought only the last belief has been demonstrated to a reliable degree. So you should excuse theists for thinking y’all have a shared belief system; sure, you don’t have one, but you do all happen to have a bunch of the same independent beliefs that by sheer coincidence are nearly universal to the lot of you. It’s hard to tell the difference from a distance.
I agree that social stimuli impacts devotion in sometimes significant ways, but evidence I’ve seen first hand through interaction with three generations of my extended family strongly suggests that the level or depth of one’s religious devotion is the most significant determinant of one’s ability to employ critical thinking, and not just on religious matters. Again, I’m confining myself to Christianity only and a control group that has a decidedly evangelical bent.
My brother has developed a weak belief in “something” but I attribute it to the crystal-waving, skull-lump-feeling new-age woman he’s been seeing on and off for 25 years.
It sounds like you’re saying that there is no way to tell the difference between:
-things we can’t see because we’re not smart enough yet
-things we can’t see because they don’t exist
Is that in fact what you’re saying?
I’d love an example of someone becoming an atheist due to peer pressure. I’ve actually been in primarily atheistic environments, and while belief was not given a lot of credibility, it did not come up all that often. MIT had (and maybe still has) one tiny chapel shared by the entire campus, and my dorm floor used to gather around to make fun of Children’s Bible Hour. I’d suspect a fundamentalist would feel negative peer pressure, but someone not accepting evolution would be unlikely to make it into MIT anyhow. Besides that, I don’t see it. Ditto for my research group in grad school. We were irreverent, but we’d never pressure anyone not to believe.
If you mean by peer pressure an environment where religion is not accepted as the norm, then maybe. But that’s about as far as I’ve ever seen it go.
I could understand this if you believed in “a supreme being” but you subscribe to catholicism…a specific flavor of god…and have since early childhood. Therefore, it appears that your belief in god is based on christian concepts.
Your evidence may be 100% correct. However, before I drew a conclusion based upon it, I would want to evaluate your family from an anthropological perspective to see who in the group is most likely to have a life view that is socially restricted vs elaborated and whose family control systems were most likely to be positional vs personal (using the language of Basil Bernstein and Mary Douglas). My suspicion would be that the people you are most likely to describe as devout follow a pattern of socially restricted language and positional family control and that someone else who evaluated your family might assign the adjective “devout” to other members. There are habits and expressions that our society attributes to devotion that may have separate motivations. In that case, assessing how “devout” a person may be while simultaneously assessing them for “critical thinking” may be an act of self-fullfilling prophecy since we ascribe the more restricted actions to people who are more “devout.” In that way Puritans are seen as more “devout” than members of the Oxford Movement, even if the college kids that formed the Oxford Movement actually spent more of their energy attempting to understand God and embrace him in their lives.
Heh…we should be so lucky!
Okay, the heavens declare the glory of God… but which God? Allah? Brahman? Jehovah? Raven? The wonderment of “creation” along is insufficient to identify any creator in particular.
While not an explanation for “all this” I submit for your consideration talkorigins.org
fix code–g
Re: logic
The problem with the “I believe in god A with specific properties that exclude belief in other gods, and my belief in god A leads me to disbelieve in god B” argument is that it is used as a reasoning why belief in god A leads to the logical conclusion that god B does not exist.
The problem there is that if the only reason god B doesn’t exist (so you believe) is that it would contradict your belief in god A, then why did it make more logical sense to believe in god A and not god B in the first place? In this case the answer seems to be “because I chose to believe in god A, therefore other gods don’t exist.” All you are really saying is that other beliefs can’t be true merely because you hold a contradictory belief.
“What I believe is true and other beliefs are false.” While this is probably an accurate description of what a lot of belief is, it doesn’t lead to any conclusions about anything. You and I can both use this ‘reasoning’ and come up with equally valid yet opposite conclusions about any number of things.
It would be awfully hard for anyone to have a completely made-up-on-their-own, uninfluenced, neutral version of god. Obviously, I have had influences. But, as I have stated before, I have been through a lot as a religious person, as many other religious people have. I went from a go-through-the-motions Catholic (following the “rules” because that’s how I was raised…what you call “indoctrination”), to basically an agnostic, to exploring other types of Christianity, to almost converting to Judaism, and eventually realizing I felt them most comfortable with worshipping God the way the Catholics do. I actually think this has more to do with my personal need for structure than it is being raised that way. So, yes, the God I worship is the Christian god, but the fact that I believe in that SPECIFIC god doesn’t have much to do with the fact that I am religious. I believe I would be a “religious” person…that is, a believer, no matter where I grew up or what religious tradition I was raised in…I might be a different religion, but I would still be religious. And this goes back to what I said before…I see god in everything. I don’t really worry too much about “which” god it is. I don’t think god worries about that too much, and so I don’t, either.
My point is that I don’t believe I need “proof” (in the scientific-method kind of way) that God exists. I get more from him than he does from me, so why should I demand proof from him?
I am saying that none of us knows what is beyond the reach of science.
So… because I believe as my parents did, I am either wrong, or as others said, brainwashed. Nice way to start a debate! Start from a point of view that leaves no space for rational discussion. I actually expected nothing less from you, and everyone who thinks this is a reasoned well thought position, understands neither the definition of “well thought”, or “reasoned”.
Cite? Who exactly is forcing you? What are they doing to you when you dont pray like them, or worship like them? What battle?
Thanks for the link, but I am more than familiar with the evolution/creation debate, and I do indeed believe wholeheartedly in evolution. Please don’t assume because a person believes that there is divine influence in the universe, that we are uninformed about science. I simply feel that there is a level to which science does not reach.
Well, your understanding is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I’ll take “know” to mean be sure beyond a reasonable doubt, to avoid the extreme skeptic issue.
Please offer a cite to any atheist in the SDMB who claims to “know” or be able to prove that there is no god - except in very special cases.
Atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) is a statement of belief.
No, diasgreeing with a position, and stating that a position is unproven or unevidenced is not the same as stating that one knows the position is wrong. There is enough evidence so that reasonable people (theists and atheists) can say that we know the belief in an inerrant Bible, including creationism, is wrong, but that is just a small subset of even Christian beliefs. Again, let’s have some evidence from reasoned discussion, not from ranting. (I don’t think even the ranters say this, but they might.)
In three decades of discussing this on various boards, I have never seen anyone claim position two. It is a total strawman, and this is exactly why people claiming that atheism consists of position 2, and is thus wrong, pisses me off. I have seen plenty of theists claiming atheists believe this, (not so much around here) and it is total bullshit.
Position 3 is a reasonable atheist position, and has nothing to do with position 2. One can look at the (lack of) evidence for the existence of god. and conclude that it is reasonable to believe that no god exists without claiming to be able to prove an existential negative. Theists of course have an unproven belief. Their belief is weaker by being provable (in a weak sense of proof as in a court of law) while atheists of course cannot and do not claim to be able to prove the absence of any god.
That isn’t quite what he said. He basically said that his reason for saying no other gods exist is his belief in (implied knowledge of) his god. He was trying to give a reason for his belief in the nonexistence of other gods being somehow more valid than our belief in the nonexistence of his god. He failed miserably.
Of course the root cause for this often shared set of beliefs is rationality. I’m not sure what you would consider a demonstration of the absence of magic - the total lack of reproducible magical abilities would count, I would guess. Ditto the lack of evidence for an afterlife. As for a universal moral code, there are significant logical problems with one existing, and the few universals shared by (most) humans can be easily explained by evolution.
Dictionaries describe usage - thanks to those like you, usage, as forced by theists, is not consistent with the lack of belief systems of professed atheists. Dictionaries are not good places to get the true definition of subtle philosophical terms.
begbert, position 5 is still atheistic - the definition of agnostic is very tight, and is number 6. [url=]To wit:
Your argument is null, though, because you’re neglecting the “never had religion, don’t care”. People born into this culture never even consider the possibility of (necessarily contradictory) deities, because they just aren’t there. Adding the possiblity of the supernatural to their lives is imposing your own mythology onto them.
You’re forcing onto them a definition that is irrelevant, and apparently ludicrous. Hence the references to pixies and unicorns.
With that accepted, then the people who have come to atheism via a thought process should be afforded the same respect as those who were born entirely without religion.
Also, many many of these arguments are from an exclusively monotheistic, and mostly Christian point-of-view. Try arguing from a monotheistic and polytheistic position and I might find your arguments a trifle more convincing.
Not what he said. He said it was wrong to believe just because your parents did. If you independently evaluate the evidence, and come to the same conclusion, it is not wrong at all. It is telling that more rigid a religious belief, the less the parents want children exposed to other views. Examples: home schoolers who want to keep children from being exposed to those heathen schools, and scientologists who keep their kids away from external influences . I have a friend whose sister falls into this category.
Those who discriminated against black people were not trying to turn them white. Try looking at how many Americans would vote for an atheist for president, as opposed to a gay person or a Jew.
You do realize, I hope, that your extended family does not constitute an unbiased sample. And that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Some people just aren’t into critical thinking, or thinking for themselves. Maybe they don’t have the natural mental equipment for it; maybe they lack the education; maybe they just can’t be bothered. Maybe they don’t want to grow up. Such people would more likely be drawn to the more authoritarian, everything-spelled-out-for-you religions. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing, provided the religion they follow is a benevolent one. If they have to follow something/someone, better an established, traditional, heart-in-the-right-place church than a charismatic cult leader or their own emptyheaded whims.
That’s fair enough, but if that is indeed the case, and that’s the place whereGod happens to reside, then we can say nothing about him, because we can know nothing about him.