Richard Dawkins' Brand of Atheism

Great Debates
221

I’m sorry, but my personal impression and opinion of you isn’t up for debate or citation. You were pushing the idea of resolving a confusion where none existed, and then turned around and did exactly what I was suspecting you were up to, confirming, not contradicting my impression, as you claim you have. Your further snotty posts to people like Voyager haven’t improved matters either. You are full of bizarre straw man accusations hurled at atheists, most of them misaimed.

Pure as driven snowy nonsense.

Theism is a claim. Pointing out that the claim is unsupported and possibly unsupportable does not require any counter-philosophy. If someone claims, without good reason, that they know what the winning lottery numbers will be, I don’t have to predict the correct ones to be skeptical. I just have to point out that your claims prior to the lottery have no basis, and after, that you were wrong.

Theisms answers are rarely even answers. They are so vague and shiftless that they often just end up being creative rephrasing of ignorance.

222

I don’t think you understand the IPU at all. First, I don’t know about anyone else, but to ME the IPU created the universe and everything in it including any concept you may happen to have of god. Don’t you dare presume to tell me that the IPU is not the source of all morality and all that exists. Who the hell are you to make such a bold statement? Can you prove that the IPU is NOT the creator of all existence?

Your god has history on its side? What, a mere couple thousand years? Maybe the IPU has been known for millions of years. Maybe it’s only been known for 5 or 6 years. What difference does it make? The IPU is still every bit as plausible as any god that you or anyone else can invent. That is the point.

Do you really still feel the IPU is “nonsense”? If so, how is it any more nonsensical then the Christian god?

Is it your position that because, as you say, “God is held as the creator of the world and the source of morality” that that makes it so?

  1. Held by whom?
  2. What about people who hold the IPU, Pixies, Satan or XYZ to be creator of the world–are their beliefs not equally plausible to you?
223

Good questions. I prefer the term spirituality but for the sake of discussion religion will suffice.

Yes, I think religion can provide reliable answers to questions about the universe but not the kind of answers I can prove to anyone else. I can share my experiences but each person must choose their own way in their own time. From my own personal subjective experiences I can say certain principles are reliable because they have repeatedly shown themselves to be true.

Do you assume that feeling cannot be knowing? If you mean knowing in a sense that is demonstratable to others, then no. Beliefs based so much on the subjective experience should remain largely provisional. Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant? There’s a passage in Cor. Now we know in part. We see as through a dark glass. We shouldn’t be overconfident about what we think we know. Better to realize that there is much more to understand.

224

I’m not sure I follow you. “…equivalent to point of theism.” is throwing me.

But if there is no god, morality had to come from somewhere else that is non god-related. So it is incumbent upon atheism to explain where morality comes from. Same for the beginnings of the uiverse. How can you expect someone to beleive in become an adherent of a position that throws out a perfectly logical explanation and offers no equally valid explanation. and yes, I hold that everything haviing a cause is perfectly logical. If anything operates outside the laws of the univers it is, by definition, god.

225

Theism is about one thing and one thing only; is there a god? When you start getting into “Did that god create us?” “Is there an afterlife?” “Is this god the source of morality”, you’re talking about a specific god, not a general “Does one exist?” question.

Think of it like this. A piece of fruit has certain definitions that make it a fruit. We might postulate “Does fruit exist?” - some might say yes, some might say no. If I say “I believe in fruit, and I believe that fruit has segments” you’ve gone past the basic “Does fruit exist” argument; you’re talking about a specific type of fruit, that is, segmented fruit. Now, if I don’t believe that there is fruit - why should I have to talk about segments? My opinions on segments don’t have anything to do with fruit, merely because *yours * does.

Your problem is you’re talking about whittling the definition of Theism down, but you’re not doing it enough. Theism is whether or not gods exist; once you start defining a god past just the definition of a god, you’re into religion.

226

An Evangelical Atheist. Kind of defeats the purpose, don’t you think?

227

I’ve got better things to do than worry about gods who are busy with some other planet. Effectively they don’t exist for me - which is at the crux of the strong atheism definition which I’ll get to later.

Nitpicking, I love it! :slight_smile: By show there is no need for a creator, I mean show there are no impossibilities in the universe, even if we don’t understand how the universe happened yet. For instance, if we looked back in time with radio telescopes and found that as far as we could tell the universe just after the Big Bang looked identical to the universe today, we might be forced to conclude that something miraculous had happened. (That’s the best example I can come up with on short notice.) Or if we had strong records from many cultures that the sun did stand still. Eliminating all the cases we can find where miracles are required also eliminates the need, though not the possibility of a god. That we can do this is not something you’d expect based on the Bible.

I’ve always said, since I got convinced of the error of my ways in alt.atheism, that strong atheism is the belief in no god, while weak atheism is the lack of belief in any god known, while having no opinion about unknown gods. The lack of a firm definition of “god,” as well the size of the universe, makes a claim of knowledge indefensible. Few if any atheists actually hold this position, and I can argue against it as well as any theist, but I call myself a strong atheist now.

Mathematical induction can be used to prove things, but logical induction never can. However it is a good justification for belief, if used properly. If you’ve scoured the zoo, and not seen any dogs, there still might be one sleeping behind the lion - but it’s not a good bet.

I ran into the IPU in alt.atheism days, and I agree that it is rude - which is its intention. There were many Christians back then who used special pleading because it was GOD and in fact were shocked and amazed that anyone could take the lord’s name in vain. Consider the stink about people taping statements on blasphemy a few weeks ago. Why should this even be shocking?

That the IPU is new means nothing - the contention that Jesus was the son of God is no less outrageous back then. Yeah, no one really believes in it, which is a problem. But the fact that people do sincerely believe in god is no justification for special pleading.

The IPU doesn’t get used much around here because the level of debate from the theists is in general much higher here, and anyone who is shocked at God being insulted has long since fled. The atheist list in aa was created because some theist said there couldn’t be that many atheists around. Theists have been in control so long that it’s not surprising they feel they have a right not to be offended.

228

All I meant about the stars was: we don’t know the ultimate source of the stars (just as we don’t know the ultimate source of the universe) but I don’t see why we have to know. There’s just some things you won’t ever know. You don’t need to go making stuff up to explain it all–that’s what children and ancient humans do/did.

229

The idea that morality, and in particular being kind and generous to one another, comes especially from Christianity, is a joke. Certainly there are Christian people who do kind and helpful things. I would suggest that there are more who do not, and many who are actively harmful to others. Some devoutly religious people do things like fly planes into buildings, shoot abortion providers, and have sex with children. Religion does nothing particularly special to convey moral or good behavior.

Secondly, we constantly hear how we are a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, and now (thanks to Algher), that American athiests achieve morality because we have been exposed to Christians in America! :eek: (“Morality? You’re soaking in it! Ancient Chinese secret, huh?”)

Tell me, for a country so very Christian that non-Christians are steeping in morality, do we behave in a very moral fashion? Do we particularly behave in a very good fashion?

If being kind and good to one another is such a key concept for Christianity, please point me towards the Commandment that says anything like being good, kind, generous or whatnot to one another.

Being good and kind is independent of religous belief or practice. Plenty of people are kind, generous, good and “moral” without having anything to do with religion.

230

Yeah, that was badly put. Apologies.

Let me try it like this. A believer’s beliefs might be summed up like this;

-There is a god.
…and morality comes from this god.
…and this god created us.

Whereas an athiest’s equivalent would be like this;

-There’s no god.

  • Morality comes from society.
  • We were created by some unknown process of abiogenesis.

Now, the theist’s question of whether there is a god has strings attached; his explanation of whether there is a god includes morality and the question of our existence. When the theist says to the atheist, “Look - I believe in my god, and here are the moral code and reason of existence that spring from it. What is your god-belief?” and the atheist says “I do not believe in your god”, the theist thinks “Aha! His explanation of beliefs isn’t as good - it doesn’t give him a reason for morality, or an answer as to our existence.”. But the atheist does, in fact have both of those things - they’re just unconnected to his god-belief.

Think of it like this; say I come up with the idea of evolution. My theory explains how one-celled creatures became the creatures we see today. It follows on by saying how lizards become birds. Now, my friend Bob comes along and says i’m wrong - actually, one-celled creatures became modern creatures because they were exposed to radiation. Lizards became birds because a fairy came along and did it (Note; not a reference to believability in gods). I turn to Bob and say “Aha - your theory only explains how one-celled creatures became modern creatures! It doesn’t say how lizards became birds! Your theory is worse than mine”. Am I right? Of course not. His theory doesn’t explain lizards-to-birds - it neither claims to or has anything to do with it. His other explanation, however, does.

The problem you’re having is that you’re comparing “My belief in my god, my belief in where morality comes from in regard to that god, my belief in how humans were created in regards to my god” to “Your disbelief in god”. Of course it looks like we’re coming up short. You shouldn’t be asking us to compare you belief in all those various things with just our one, single belief to do with god; you should be comparing your explanations for all those things with our explanations for all those things. Or, your belief in god *solely * with our disbelief in god solely. That’s the mistake you’re making.

No, it’s not. All atheism explains is whether there is a god or not. That’s it. When you get into defining things about a god that are not solely the definition of it as a god, you’re getting into religion, not basic Theism.

But we do have perfectly logical explanations. They just don’t have anything to do with our atheism. That’s my point. All my atheism says is “There’s no god”. All your theism says is “There’s a god”. When you say “There’s a god - oh, and he created the universe” you can’t expect me to answer solely using my atheism. After all, you’re not solely using your theism. You’re using your Christianity.

Ok. I have no interest in getting into an actual debate on the existence of god here, though. If you want to do tht, please feel free to start a new thread.

231

As I’m sure you know, the belief is that the laws of the universe hold for everything and everything EXCEPT God.

Well, since you seem to know so much about QM then, let’s a get a cite, and a specific explanation as to “uncaused” events. Or do you hold that everything cause that scientists haven’t yet figured out is “uncaused”?

232

Because no one is asking anyone to become an adherent of anything. People are having the claims to the adherence to something specific being criticized as unjustified.

Either everything MUST have a cause, or some things don’t. If some things don’t, then for all we know the universe doesn’t have a cause. Don’t forget that we can only assume the universe has a cause if and only if we assume that everything must have a cause.

Regardless, it’s perfectly possible that there are things external to the universe: even things that caused this universe, and yet not have it make any sense to call them gods in the sense of them necessarily having any intelligence or will or concern with this universe.

233

I’m not sure I read this right, because I think we are in complete agreement. You are making—I think—the exact point I’ve been making, that it’s nerxt to useless for Atheists to go after a particular religion. Even if they are 100% successful, there’s always another religion. Or another possible religion.

Where do we disagree? Maybe in that whatever belief system is offered up, it should answerthree or four very fundamental questions. Is that it?

234

You are assuming that there is some “tenet” of atheism that has some particular goal or strategy, and hence “going after” the claims of a particular religion are “next to useless.” But most atheists are just people criticizing claims that they find worthy of criticism, as they crop up. There’s no grand “defeat all religious claims that could ever be made ever” contest.

235

Dammit! I just got done gluing my posterboard to the colored borders. And what will I do with my diorama?

236

Partially what Apos said. I as an atheist won’t disagree with you if say “Generally, it’s a good thing to not kill people” even if your underlying reason for that is your religious belief. After all, I agree. What i’d argue against is the specific points you believe in that I don’t.

Partially because of a reason I think i’ve finally found a way of saying reasonably conherently in my last post. Atheism poses nothing but that there is no god. Theism poses nothing but that there is a god. Pantheism poses nothing but that there is more than one god. When you start talking about morality coming from god, you’re not talking Theism - you’re talking religion. And you can’t compare “religion” to “atheism” and expect the latter to have an answer to everything your religion does. You can compare theism and atheism, and your religion to my explanations of how the world works, but you don’t get to mix and match and then claim that they don’t measure up. Of course they don’t.

237

I think his problem is that he believes that atheists think that there is some moral imperative to debunk all religions. That’s a very Christian thing to believe - in the sense that Christians have a moral imperative to witness. Being raised Jewish, where there is no moral imperative to convince someone of the correctness of my religion, I find this very odd.

Where debunking might come in handy is if a particular religion justified social policy based on its assumed correctness. It’s also fun debunking claims made around here. But I haven’t noticed anyone starting threads to debunk Shintoism. What’s the point?

238

If I were evangelical, I still wouldn’t have to debunk everything. But, as I just posted, there is no reason to be evangelical. Theist says X, atheist says ~X, theist says “you’re being evangelical!”

Sometimes the X and ~X are in different threads, which makes it harder.

239

There was an article in the Times today about a study (published in Nature, I think) about how the loss of a particular part of the brain affects moral judgements. In particular, people without this were more willing to say they’d, for instance, suffocate a baby to prevent a family from being discovered by enemy soldiers. Of course they can’t say these people would actually do it, but there is activity in this part of the brain associated with this kind of moral reasoning.

This doesn’t prove that this area wasn’t put there and programmed by god, but if it is physical it could evolve, and at the least science is working to explain where morality comes from just as you requested.

240

Us, and evolution. A society composed of nothing but sociopaths wouldn’t last long at all against one composed of people who aren’t; evolution pretty much mandates some form of morality in a social species like ours. Building on that, is the obvious fact that a moral society is more pleasant to live in, so we created it.

None of which has anything to do with atheism; atheism is just the belief that there are no gods; that’s ALL that it is. You can believe that morality was handed to us by the fairys and still be an atheist.

“God did it” isn’t an explanation at all, much less a valid one, since it begs the question “what made God ?”. “I don’t know” is not only equally valid, but superior; an “equally valid” explanation would be to claim that I made the universe, and that I’m pretending to be a mortal atheist to screw with your head.

It’s not “perfectly logical”, because it’s simply wrong. And there’s no reason to believe that anything that operates outside the laws of the universe is a god; it could be another universe, or some non-god . . . thing that has nothing to do with us.

That’s still a major denial of physical law, since most religious people believe God can and does intervene all the time.

Virtual particles and quantum uncertainty come to mind. And I don’t know that much about QM; it’s just that you appear to be a few decades out of date.