The Trouble with Atheism

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

If you look back over the thread, I think you'll find me state on numerous occasions that atheism is a belief - a belief without proof - and therefore arrogant and closed minded.

Atheism is a belief without proof, since it is rather impossible to prove something that we cannot see, hear or experience in any way doesn't exist

Man 1- "Did you know there isn't an invisible red dragon that you cannot hear or touch sitting beside you"

Man 2 - "Really? Can you prove that to me...?"

But that doesn't mean it is a belief without logic or reason.

In fact it is a belief almost entirely based on judgement, logic and reason, since being an atheist doesn't give anyone that warm fluffy feelings one gets by accepting many of the mainstream religious systems ("I'm saved!", "I'm going to live for ever!" "I'm a good person!" "God loves me!")

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

Sorry... what's the title of this forum?

Atheists only?

Atheists anonymous? ... (cuz with all this back slapping and ganging up, it certainly feels like that)

There is an & after atheist isn't there... and then another word...

Cop on - there is nobody ganging up on you.

You have asked a lot of questions. A lot of people took time to address those questions. You called them a lot of them closed-minded.

You come off like a typical troll who asks for opinions, gives nothing back in the way of debate, and then becomes belligerent.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

But that doesn't mean it is a belief without logic or reason.

In fact it is a belief almost entirely based on judgement, logic and reason

...without compassion, feeling and alot of whatever else makes us human

pinksoir

compassion and feeling does not lead to any answers or indeed any truth. they are purely subjective, whereas reason and logic is the closest thing we have to any sort of objectivity.

I am not saying that compassion, feeling etc are any less a part of human-ness, but if we all followed our feeling without employing reason we would be very morally dubious beings.

reason is THE most fundamental human trait.

(edit) even higher animals have feelings and compassion. look at the proto-social structures in chimps and apes. they look after each other, care for each other and fee genuine loss and sadness at the death of one of the group.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

...without compassion, feeling and alot of whatever else makes us human

Not following... Compassion towards what exactly?

I'm supposed to not be athiest, to accept God, so that theist feel better about themselves and their religion? What, is he going to start crying unless I believe that Jesus died for our sins?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Not following... Compassion towards what exactly?

I'm supposed to not be athiest, to accept God, so that theist feel better about themselves and their religion? What, is he going to start crying unless I believe that Jesus died for our sins?

Wicknight! Are you making baby Jesus cry again?

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

pinksoir wrote:

compassion and feeling does not lead to any answers or indeed any truth. they are purely subjective, whereas reason and logic is the closest thing we have to any sort of objectivity.

I am not saying that compassion, feeling etc are any less a part of human-ness, but if we all followed our feeling without employing reason we would be very morally dubious beings.

reason is THE most fundamental human trait.

(edit) even higher animals have feelings and compassion. look at the proto-social structures in chimps and apes. they look after each other, care for each other and fee genuine loss and sadness at the death of one of the group.

Reason is something we share with alot more animals than compassion

pinksoir

i'm sorry but you must give me an example. that's an absurd claim.

joe_chicken

pinksoir wrote:

i'm sorry but you must give me an example. that's an absurd claim.

A beaver sees a nut... He reasons that there must be a nut inside... He breaks the nut open with a rock

A leopard sees an antelope go behind a bush. The leopard can't see the antelope, but it can reason that the antelope has not disappeared into thin air, but is behind the bush

I pretend to throw a stick for my dog(while sneakily keeping it behind my back), I do it once... she runs in the direction I'd throw it... no stick... I do it twice.... she does the same.... no stick... I do it a third time... she runs around my back to see the stick and barks at me for being mean... *ruff*

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

A beaver sees a nut... He reasons that there must be a nut inside... He breaks the nut open with a rock

A leopard sees an antelope go behind a bush. The leopard can't see the antelope, but it can reason that the antelope has not disappeared into thin air, but is behind the bush

I pretend to throw a stick for my dog(while sneakily keeping it behind my back), I do it once... she runs in the direction I'd throw it... no stick... I do it twice.... she does the same.... no stick... I do it a third time... she runs around my back to see the stick and barks at me for being mean... *ruff*

those aren't really examples of reason, at least not reason in the human context. They are examples of intelligence, but that isn't really the same thing.

Not that this really matters, the original statement about atheism being a choice without compassion for others is still bizare. Would it not be rather silly to not be an atheist just because you feel compassion towards thesist. I'm not even following why it would be necessary to do this, are theists very very upset by atheism, and is this a reason not to come to an atheist conclusion. And how would that work anyone, since you would be lying to them and yourself if you did come to an atheists conclusion and then pretended you didn't simply to be compassionate to theists.

pinksoir

look it. reason requires some sort of analysis. a dog may learn how to push down on a door handle, making the door open, but it has no idea of the mechanics behind what he has done. it could not apply what it knows to different types of door handles.

it is the idea of converting perception to conception. knowing 'why' we do something.

here is some further reading for you.

http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Morgan/Morgan_1903/Morgan_1903_16.html

i think you'll find you are wrong.

Dave!

Until joe_chicken posts his own stance on the matter, I'm afraid I can't stop thinking he's a troll.

What are your beliefs, joe_chicken? Or are you not going to post them in case they get questioned/ridiculed...?

Zillah

This thread got real crap real fast. And I think we know who to blame.


God.


Or Joe Chicken. I suppose "God" would just be the easy answer wouldn't it?

pinksoir

well joe chicken started the thread...

it appears that the topic of the thread was lost somewhere around page 2. i believe it was something to do with the trouble with atheism. atheism being a belief in itself etc etc.

so what were the conclusions reached with regards to these problems?

joe_chicken

Yes, cuz I'm taking the thread off topic Zillah....
If you'll forgive me for going off topic again:

pinksoir wrote:

look it. reason requires some sort of analysis. a dog may learn how to push down on a door handle, making the door open, but it has no idea of the mechanics behind what he has done. it could not apply what it knows to different types of door handles.

it is the idea of converting perception to conception. knowing 'why' we do something.

here is some further reading for you.

http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Morgan/Morgan_1903/Morgan_1903_16.html

i think you'll find you are wrong.

"Reason" from the Oxford English Dictionary:
verb 1 think, understand, and form judgements logically. 2 (reason out) find a solution (to a problem) by considering possible options. 3 (reason with) persuade with rational argument

I think my examples fit at least one description...

Back on topic:
DaveMcG, why do you need my beliefs to validate my theory on atheism?

Wicknight, I think if I told you the sky was blue you'd disagree.
(Before you disagree with me I know you wouldn't, it was an exaggeration)

I'm sorry if I seem like a troll... Just wanted to comment on the things that interested me in the program... they obviously don't interest any of you.

I'm obviously not gonna change any of your minds, and you're not gonna change mine... so we'll leave it at that

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

Wicknight, I think if I told you the sky was blue you'd disagree.
(Before you disagree with me I know you wouldn't, it was an exaggeration)

Ah yes, that old trick. Claim you are not being listened to or taken seriously but because we are being pointlessly argumentative :rolleyes:

Joe_chicken I have explained in detail the various flaws I think your theories (if they could be called that) and points have, despite the fact that your posts seem to be so light weight and devoid of substance that it is hard to figure out what position you are taking or what points you are trying to get across. But if you like me to explain some more I would be quite happy to.

If you wish to have a proper discussion here I'm also perfectly happy to discuss the various points you have raised in detail.

But so far you seem to simply raise these points and then complain that people don't agree with you, before moving on to raising other points, which are slowly decreasing to little more than thinly veiled insults towards atheists.

As far as I can remember the last proper discussion between myself and yourself left off with you claiming that religion could have come before the formation of early society, and as such had a positive role in creating the first societies. I countered that historically that idea seems highly unlikely. To which I no response. Your next post to me simply said atheism is devoid of compassion. I don't even understand what point you were trying to make there, whether the judgement to become an atheist is lacking in compassion for others, such as theists, or if an atheists himself is lacking in compassion.

One has to wonder why you are posting here, what types of replies to you expect to receive. What point are you trying to "convince" us of?

If people don't agree with you then you can either attempt to convince them further with more detailed thought out arguments and points, or you can leave. It might help if you actually listened to what atheists themselves were saying to you about what they believe and think about subjects like morality and moral frameworks in society.

Offering up feather weight posts and comments with little substance or further examination and then complaining that you are not being taken serious will only get you branded as a troll. Likewise posting ill-informed (and in some cases ridiculous) judgements about what atheism is, and then refusing to listen to responses that attempt to correct or clarify this negative view of atheism, will probably get you banned

Dave!

joe_chicken wrote:

DaveMcG, why do you need my beliefs to validate my theory on atheism?

Because you're not sticking with any line of argument. I responded in great detail to your earlier assertions and you just ignored my post presumably because you can't refute the points. Then you move onto something else until someone else gets you in a headlock over that.

Just post and tell us "I believe in X, Y, and Z. I'm not sure about A, B, and C. I want to learn more about D, E, and F." Just like the rest of us have done.

It will make everything more pleasant and we can understand why you're not addressing our points, but just posting general posts like "look it's clear we're not going to agree", etc.

Dades

There really is no conspiracy, just a bunch of boardsies with an interest in such topics.

It should be clear to see from alternative threads in A/A that arguments have to be supported here whether one is a regular or not. And new regulars are always welcome.

joe_chicken

Sorry Dave, I didn't respond to everyone as there were too many responses, and too little time... I'll get back to your earlier post, but I think I've said a lot of what I've said in other places:

DaveMcG wrote:

The people who "created" religion, and wrote the various religious texts weren't writing them with the hand of god -- they were just putting into words existing social norms. It's not like people were raping each other left right and centre and then read the Bible and said "oh sh*t, we're NOT supposed to do that?" Religion was created as a means of explaining the inexplicable, the apparant morality it contains is merely a frame.

I've stated a few times that I agree with you... Religion is not the be all and end all of religion, but it was a framework, a framework that was needed for a reason.... see other posts on this thread about this.

DaveMcG wrote:

Also the fact that religion changes over time is evidence of the fact that it follows existing social conventions so as to not go out of step with society and thus become obsolete. If it were an infallible moral guide, then it would be stationary and we wouldn't be able to look at the Old Testament and point out how immoral it is.

Again, I agree... I never said it was infalable

DaveMcG wrote:

But the fact is humans can pick and choose which religious texts we should obey because our moral framework has evolved with society. Surely if the source of our morality was god, then it would be static? But the fact is it changes over time.

I think this is the same point as the one above.

DaveMcG wrote:

I'd be inclined to say that laws, the state, the police, etc., are all other manifestations of moral conventions.

I agree... so again... we had all these things running in conjunction with religion... why don't we need it now?

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm sure you could find some moral worth in aspects of Mein Kampf, but that doesn't make it a good referance point when you're looking for moral guidance. The fact is there is alot of immoral material in both Mein Kampf and the Bible. I can say that because my moral compass has been shaped by years of societal evolution, so I know that stoning people for infidelity is wrong.

Ok... societal evolution.... I'm not sure what you mean... I think you mean that society has shaped your morality
Is that right?
But as I've argued numerous times on this thread it is impossible to seperate religion from our social past... it happened. For good or bad.

DaveMcG wrote:

The fact that you can say that too indicates that you too acknowledge that religion is not always a good moral referance. Or do you too think that homosexuality is an abomination?

I never said it was always a good moral reference... You are just trying to provoke a reaction with your question

DaveMcG wrote:

It's just as interesting how quick people are to make religion into some kind of infallible beacon of moral goodness, despite the fact that most religions contradict each other.

I don't know many people who believe that these days.

DaveMcG wrote:

Again, which is the right book to turn to for moral guidance? The Koran?

If I knew that DaveMcG, I'd follow it and I wouldn't be having this conversation.

I suppose that brings me onto my own belief...

I don't know what I believe in... my belief changes with every conversation I have

Dave!

Thank you for responding to my post and for clarifying your own position! Now I'll stop annoying you! Just to reply to a few of your points...

joe_chicken wrote:

I agree... so again... we had all these things running in conjunction with religion... why don't we need it now?

We don't need it now because it is clear that science is the way to go when trying explain things, not deities. Religious people rely on science all the time, and if I told them that I saw a unicorn, they'd ask for evidence. But yet they'd believe in a deity based on no evidence... They can't put 2 and 2 together in that sense.

That's from a cosmological point of view...

From a moralistic point of view, as I've already mentioned, we never needed religion. Morals existed before organised religion, and will continue after it. They are a mere frame around the whole need for religion, which is to explain the inexplicable and to give reason to those who cannot accept the apparant futility of life. If there was no moral framework to contextualise the main points being argued by religious writers, then it possibly wouldn't have reached the level of popularity is has reached.

joe_chicken wrote:

Ok... societal evolution.... I'm not sure what you mean... I think you mean that society has shaped your morality
Is that right?
But as I've argued numerous times on this thread it is impossible to seperate religion from our social past... it happened. For good or bad.

I mean that societal interaction over millenia has effectively 'created' morals which have changed and evolved as homosapiens' brains have evolved into more complex organs, and simultaneously as human society has evolved into a similarly complex system.

So as our environment becomes more and more structured and complex, morals become a necessary phenomenon.

I really don't see how religion needs to play any part in that. If anything religion has 'latched on' to the ever-changing moral zeitgeist (to use an expression that Dawkins loves!).

joe_chicken wrote:

I don't know many people who believe that these days.

Have a glance across the pond! I would say there's more that do what I said than what you said (ie. make religion into a beast). Richard Dawkins is very much a minority. But let's not pretend that either of us believe what we posted.

joe_chicken wrote:

I don't know what I believe in... my belief changes with every conversation I have

You and me both

Zombrex

Joe why do you keep claiming that it is religion was needed?

Surely it is moral frameworks that are needed. Religion is how these can manifest themselves, but I'm not following the argument for why it is in that specific form that they are needed. Religion seems to be a particularly bad way of organising religious frameworks, and any region that has attempted other, secular moral frameworks seem to have come out a lot better than ones that adopt moral frameworks around religion.

joe_chicken

DaveMcG wrote:

We don't need it now because it is clear that science is the way to go when trying explain things, not deities.

I'm not too sure...

But my question was more from a moralistic stand point, so I won't veer off course:

DaveMcG wrote:

From a moralistic point of view, as I've already mentioned, we never needed religion.

I suppose that's just another point we disagree on that neither of us can prove.

DaveMcG wrote:

Morals existed before organised religion, and will continue after it.

I've never refuted this point, it seems many people on here think I have. The point I'm making is that religion was there.... it did effect our morals (again... it didn't give us morality)... and now it's gone

DaveMcG wrote:

They are a mere frame around the whole need for religion....

Ok... so you're arguing that religion was built around a frame of morals?... I completely agree.

DaveMcG wrote:

....which is to explain the inexplicable and to give reason to those who cannot accept the apparant futility of life.

I've separated the sentence because I think you are making 2 points.

I think religion served a number of purposes, including 1) To hold some kind of moral teachings (your first point) 2) To explain the universe (your second point)

I think both were why it was so popular.

DaveMcG wrote:

If there was no moral framework to contextualise the main points being argued by religious writers, then it possibly wouldn't have reached the level of popularity is has reached.

So you're saying that morality in religion is what made it popular?
I would argue that that's a pretty good sign that people need religion for at least some kind of moral guidance.

DaveMcG wrote:

I mean that societal interaction over millenia has effectively 'created' morals which have changed and evolved as homosapiens' brains have evolved into more complex organs, and simultaneously as human society has evolved into a similarly complex system.

So as our environment becomes more and more structured and complex, morals become a necessary phenomenon.

Again... I completely agree.
Society created morals... agreed.
Society developed and evolved to create religion... agreed
Religion took on morals that agreed with peoples sensibilities... agreed

But society itself was then effected by religion. I find it hard to believe that you can doubt that. But hey! Another thing we disagree on

DaveMcG wrote:

I really don't see how religion needs to play any part in that. If anything religion has 'latched on' to the ever-changing moral zeitgeist (to use an expression that Dawkins loves!).

Ok... so at worst religion was like a mirror that reflected the morality of society. We obviously needed this, and I would argue that we still do.

If you agree, where do we get that mirror from these days?
TV?... has TV killed God? [evil music]dun dun duuuun[/evil music]

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

Joe why do you keep claiming that it is religion was needed?

... simply from the fact that it existed and the fact it survived so long... I would argue that would indicate a "need"

Wicknight wrote:

Religion seems to be a particularly bad way of organising religious frameworks

I think it's probably been the most successful way of organising them (from a point of view of how many people they effect with their morals)

Wicknight wrote:

...and any region that has attempted other secular moral frameworks seem to have come out a lot better than ones that adopt moral frameworks around religion.

(I'm not trying to be smart, this is a genuine question) Where? and what "secular moral frameworks"?

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

Ok... so at worst religion was like a mirror that reflected the morality of society. We obviously needed this, and I would argue that we still do.

If you agree, where do we get that mirror from these days?
TV?... has TV killed God? [evil music]dun dun duuuun[/evil music]

That's interesting there...

Although religions "evolve" to try and reflect the morals of the day, they do so by 're-interpreting' the original texts on which they are based. For example most Christians either haven't read the Old Testament, or would reject it as analogous. Apart from the 10 commandments (and not all of them) there simply isn't much to take from it. Instead they concentrate on the new Testament, and cherry pick from the fluffy parables they get read out every Sunday in mass.

However the source material will never actually change, and over time it progressively becomes more of a stretch to weed your morals from the ancient writings of any religion. Instead, as we see in large swathes of the US, a refusal to depart from the source material leads to a regression (and often oppression) in society.

Hence with the safety net of government, and law and order, it should be possible for people to develop their own morality independent of immutable texts.

Or at least that's my morning €0.02...

Zillah

joe_chicken wrote:

... simply from the fact that it existed and the fact it survived so long... I would argue that would indicate a "need"

Thats awful logic. Continued/historical existence says nothing about a "need". The common cold has been around for ever and continues to survive but that doesn't mean we need it.

I think it's probably been the most successful way of organising them (from a point of view of how many people they effect with their morals)

Wait, so the sheer quantity of people affected dictates whether it was a success or not? Surely that just shows good population control, it doesn't make it more moral.

If I set up a propaganda department and we brainwashed a billion people into thinking eating babies was a good thing, would we be successful from a moral point of view...?

(I'm not trying to be smart, this is a genuine question) Where? and what "secular moral frameworks"?

Scandinavia. Or every good constitution.

joe_chicken

Zillah wrote:

Thats awful logic. Continued/historical existence says nothing about a "need". The common cold has been around for ever and continues to survive but that doesn't mean we need it.

Emm... yes... because we all choose to have colds.

Zillah wrote:

Wait, so the sheer quantity of people affected dictates whether it was a success or not? Surely that just shows good population control, it doesn't make it more moral.

If you're trying to spread a particular moral belief, then the amount of people it effects would be a pretty good indicator.

Zillah wrote:

If I set up a propaganda department and we brainwashed a billion people into thinking eating babies was a good thing, would we be successful from a moral point of view...?

From a moral point of view? no.

From the point of view of someone who would want to convince a billion people into eating babies? yes. (i think that would be probably the most successful spreading of morals ever done... read "successful" as "most powerful" and not "moral")

Zillah wrote:

Scandinavia. Or every good constitution.

[sarcasm]O only the good ones? That's ok then.[/sarcasm]

I thought you were going to mention America for a second there.

pH

Zillah wrote:

Thats awful logic. Continued/historical existence says nothing about a "need". The common cold has been around for ever and continues to survive but that doesn't mean we need it.

Great point, though I think the death penalty is probably a better analogy.

What joe is arguing here is equivalent to saying "since the death penalty has been with us humans for thousands of years, that must constitute a very basic 'need' for it". Modern societies who have gotten rid of it are somehow wrong. Not for any other reason that the length of time we've had it for indicates a deep-rooted 'need', therefore it's somehow right.

joe_chicken

pH wrote:

What joe is arguing here is equivalent to saying "since the death penalty has been with us humans for thousands of years, that must constitute a very basic 'need' for it". Modern societies who have gotten rid of it are somehow wrong. Not for any other reason that the length of time we've had it for indicates a deep-rooted 'need', therefore it's somehow right.

No - what I'm saying is (to take your analogy):
"We have a need for justice"

Religion changes. Justice changes... The death penalty doesn't.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

... simply from the fact that it existed and the fact it survived so long... I would argue that would indicate a "need"

Well the two don't really stack up. The British Empire existed and survived for so long, but it is doubtful that the countries under its rule, including Ireland, would say they "needed" it. The reason the British Empire survived for so long is because it was powerful and those who controlled it wanted to remain powerful. It could be argued that the same applies to western religion.

joe_chicken wrote:

I think it's probably been the most successful way of organising them (from a point of view of how many people they effect with their morals)

How do you define success in that manner? At the high of religous power in Europe was also some of the bloodiest years. As society has moved to more secular humanist societies after Enlightnment the number of terrible events have decreased. While I'm sure religion did provide a moral frame work for say something like killing, it wasn't a particularly good frame work. One of the greatest problems with religion is that is very slow to update and almost impossible to argue againt its dogma.

joe_chicken wrote:

(I'm not trying to be smart, this is a genuine question) Where?

Well Ireland for a start. You live in a (mostly) secular social democracy and legal system. Constrast this with say a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran, where the state and the church are so linked as to be almost indistigusable and the laws are defined by the religion. A country like the USA where it is actually a fundamental principle of the state the religion and state must be seperate is also good example.

joe_chicken wrote:

and what "secular moral frameworks"?

The classic example of a secular moral framework is the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Not a perfect document granted, but not a bad start. No mention of a sky god anywhere in that document (as far as I'm aware). A particular religous outlook is irrelivent to the document (and in fact a lot of religions don't like it because it guarrentees religious freedom where as some religions don't like other religions have said freedom) But there are countless other examples.

pH

joe_chicken wrote:

Religion changes. Justice changes... The death penalty doesn't.

You're getting yourself confused! here's what you said (talking about religion):

... simply from the fact that it existed and the fact it survived so long... I would argue that would indicate a "need"

And now you're saying something different? Your original statement implies that ANYTHING which exists and survives for a long time indicates a "need", you don't mention these other caveats you've just added.

I (based on Zillah's original insight) said this equally applies to the death penalty, so now you add something utterly irrelevant about change, as if this saves it.

Anyway, explain how religion changes please? And I mean religion in terms of the organised worshipping of God. Has God changed his mind as to how he wants us to behave over the years? What made him change his mind, and how did he communicate this to his followers?

Also you never answered my question on the moral worth of The Book of Mormon, a book given to Joseph Smith on gold plates by an angel and transcribed by him. Does this book contain this 'moral worth' that you speak of? How many times have you read it?