Atheism: a "faith", a "leap of faith", or neither?

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote:

i rule out Santa Claus' existence on the fact that we know from history he was a being made up for children.

It is historically and anthropologically precisely as certain that any given human religious system is just as 'made up' as santa claus (think of Scientology for a good, recent example. All the rest are identical in every respect except they're mostly older). This fact is clear and apparent to atheists (semantics and definitions aside), but for reasons best known to themselves, believers fails to grasp it.

This is a quite different thing to recognizing that things may exist in the universe of which we have no knowledge. The point about these things is that we have no knowledge of them. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken or lying, no exceptions.

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

It is historically and anthropologically precisely as certain that any given human religious system is just as 'made up' as santa claus (think of Scientology for a good, recent example. All the rest are identical in every respect except they're mostly older). This fact is clear and apparent to atheists (semantics and definitions aside), but for reasons best known to themselves, believers fails to grasp it.

This is a quite different thing to recognizing that things may exist in the universe of which we have no knowledge. The point about these things is that we have no knowledge of them. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken or lying, no exceptions.

Thanks.

Zombrex

rockbeer wrote: »

It is historically and anthropologically precisely as certain that any given human religious system is just as 'made up' as santa claus (think of Scientology for a good, recent example. All the rest are identical in every respect except they're mostly older). This fact is clear and apparent to atheists (semantics and definitions aside), but for reasons best known to themselves, believers fails to grasp it.

This is a quite different thing to recognizing that things may exist in the universe of which we have no knowledge. The point about these things is that we have no knowledge of them. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken or lying, no exceptions.

Good post, sums it up well.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

I suppose I'm left with the question still, why does one want to call themselves 'atheist' if in reality they are a bit more open to the possibilities?

I don't think being open to possibilities affects the term. Everybody should be open to the idea that there are things existing that we have never even imagined.

JimiTime wrote: »

Instead of messing with its meaning, why not just, not call yourself atheist. just curious.

Not calling yourself one wouldn't change the fact if you are!

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

It does shed some light. I think overall though, it depends on the atheist you ask as to what 'his(or her)' atheism is. I stand by my view though, that if one says that 'there is no god, devine beings etc' then that view requires a leap of faith. if a persons atheism is for want of a better term, agnostic atheism, then this bridges this leap somewhat.

I suppose I'm left with the question still, why does one want to call themselves 'atheist' if in reality they are a bit more open to the possibilities? Instead of messing with its meaning, why not just, not call yourself atheist. just curious.

It is possible to reject your idea of what is out there without rejecting the idea that anything is out there.

atheism is the rejection of the human concept of gods. they don't exist. that doesn't mean nothing exists.

think of it this way. there is a box in a room and none of us know what is in the box.

you say "I believe that there is this type of chocolate bar in the box", and you proceed to explain the bar in detail.

I say that is ridiculous, you can't possible know that. I rejecting your belief of the chocolate bar in the box.

I'm not saying there is nothing in the box. I'm not saying there is something in the box. In fact I'm not even saying there isn't some kind of chocolate bar in the box. But it isn't your chocolate bar because that is simply something you made up, it is not connected to what is in the box at all.

What I am doing is rejecting your idea that you some how know what is in the box.

If there is anything out there what ever "it" actually is it isn't what you think it is (gods, deities, "higher powers"), because all these are inventions of the human imagination, like your chocolate bar in the above example.

Dave!

JimiTime wrote: »

I stand by my view though, that if one says that 'there is no god, devine beings etc' then that view requires a leap of faith.

About as much of a leap of faith as saying that there is no fairies, goblins, leprauchauns, unicorns, etc., yeah.

JimiTime

DaveMcG wrote: »

About as much of a leap of faith as saying that there is no fairies, goblins, leprauchauns, unicorns, etc., yeah.

So you would say, 'there is no gods or devine beings or supernatural entities'? would that be correct?

Dave!

Depends what "supernatural entities" means really...

I take it you don't believe in Thor. What makes him less believable than your god? Is it simply personal experience?

JC 2K3

The funny thing about this argument is that it's entirely linguistically derived.

stereoroid

Wicknight wrote: »

You guys don't know what you are talking about and you are making all this stuff up is basically the best way of summing up the atheist position

If by that you mean that we atheists are defining our positions for ourselves, with no dogma, no central authorities, and by negotiation and discussion, then yes, we don't know what we're talking about. You want precise definitions, and certainty, and clear declarations of belief, go to church. I'm quite happy to say I don't know if I don't know - but that doesn't mean we can't know, which is the original definition (by Huxley) of Agnosticism.

rockbeer

stereoroid wrote: »

I'm quite happy to say I don't know if I don't know - but that doesn't mean we can't know, which is the original definition (by Huxley) of Agnosticism.

Yes, I think this is a really important distinction. There is a difference between temporary agnosticism based on a lack of evidence, which will be resolved as information becomes available e.g. "I don't know what will happen when I grab these two wires. Ouch - now I have data, better not do that again!" and permanent, unchanging agnosticism as an acceptance of the irrevocable impossibility of knowing something e.g. "I can never know whether god exists or not, no matter what evidence I'm presented with."

I would say the true religious agnostic falls into the latter category and most atheists into the former.

Orion

PDN wrote: »

In the old days an atheist was someone who didn't believe in the existence of God. Life is much more complicated nowadays.

Not complicated for me. I do not believe there is a god/intelligent designer/benevolent entity - whatever. I think faith in a supernatural entity is pure superstition and grounded in man's innate need to believe that something better that us has a plan. To paraphrase Voltaire - god does not exist therefore it was necessary to invent him.

I'm quite happy to believe that I am completely responsible for my own actions without the cop-out that is free will. In fact if I was to be anything at all it would be a holistic solipsist - everything in the universe is part of a whole entity but my mind is the only thing that I know exists therefore I am the universe. Or as Heinlein put it "time started when I did, and stops when I do."

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

So you would say, 'there is no gods or devine beings or supernatural entities'? would that be correct?

"Gods, devine beings or supernatural entities" in that definition would suggest that such things would be "known" or put forward as existing. Given characteristics, if you will.

What it doesn't include, imo, is any concept of something behind the known universe not yet imagined or vocalised.

Again, layman v philosopher.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

So you would say, 'there is no gods or devine beings or supernatural entities'? would that be correct?

You can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts, fairies and leprechauns. I imagine many, possibly most, atheists, would take a similar view to other 'supernatural entities' as they do towards god i.e. there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief in them. Then again, personal experience may count for much. There are, no doubt, atheists out there who feel they have personal experience of and belief in the supernatural.

So, strictly speaking, atheism is an absence of belief in god or gods: the term implies nothing about fairies or leprechauns, any more than belief in god implies belief in other supernatural phenomena. To put it another way:

Belief in god != belief in other supernatural entities
Unbelief in god != unbelief in other supernatural entities

iUseVi

rockbeer wrote: »

You can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts, fairies and leprechauns. I imagine many, possibly most, atheists, would take a similar view to other 'supernatural entities' as they do towards god i.e. there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief in them. Then again, personal experience may count for much. There are, no doubt, atheists out there who feel they have personal experience of and belief in the supernatural.

So, strictly speaking, atheism is an absence of belief in god or gods: the term implies nothing about fairies or leprechauns, any more than belief in god implies belief in other supernatural phenomena. To put it another way:

Belief in god != belief in other supernatural entities
Unbelief in god != unbelief in other supernatural entities

Indeed. And then there is other terms that might suit some atheists better such as naturalist - The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws; of which god or gods are only a small part.
But then try explaining that to the person on the street without confusing them...:)

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

"Gods, devine beings or supernatural entities" in that definition would suggest that such things would be "known" or put forward as existing. Given characteristics, if you will.

What it doesn't include, imo, is any concept of something behind the known universe not yet imagined or vocalised.

Again, layman v philosopher.

So, common consensus here, is intelligent design is as possible as whatever you want to call the opposite?? Its just that you feel that man has never found a concept to define such an entity?

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

So, common consensus here, is intelligent design is as possible as whatever you want to call the opposite?? Its just that you feel that man has never found a concept to define such an entity?

I wouldn't say that's the consensus at all. The consensus is that what you call intelligent design is remotely possible, but far, far less probable than 'whatever you want to call the opposite'.

Not sure what you're reading into people's words but this sounds like clutching at straws. You've managed to get people to acknowledge that there is a possibility of things we know nothing of. OK, but now it sounds like you're twisting their words to suggest they regard such a possibility as somehow on an equal footing with other things for which there is actual evidence.

Not all possibilities are equal. Anything for which there is literally zero evidence is so improbable as to belong in the realms of pure speculation. 'Intelligent design' should be treated as such.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

So, common consensus here, is intelligent design is as possible as whatever you want to call the opposite?? Its just that you feel that man has never found a concept to define such an entity?

I just know the term Intelligent Design is going to muddy the waters here!

I'm not going say there is a consensus, but I think there is some agreement that anything is possible in the realm of the complete unknown. That includes unknown origins of the universe - even a 'designer'.

While atheism accepts this, it also agrees that man has created a multitude of entities, designers and gods, which have no basis in reality and can be safely disregarded when it comes to the Big Questions (in the same way that every believer disregards the gods of other religions).

Nobody said we had the answers!

rockbeer

We need a poll!

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

I just know the term Intelligent Design is going to muddy the waters here!

I'm not going say there is a consensus, but I think there is some agreement that anything is possible in the realm of the complete unknown. That includes unknown origins of the universe - even a 'designer'.

While atheism accepts this, it also agrees that man has created a multitude of entities, designers and gods, which have no basis in reality and can be safely disregarded when it comes to the Big Questions (in the same way that every believer disregards the gods of other religions).

Nobody said we had the answers!

Thanks for not assuming I'm trying to twist words etc. there seems to be a certain paranoia amongst others.

Can I ask, do you think there is equal possibility of some form of intelligent design, and whatever the alternative is?

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Can I ask, do you think there is equal possibility of some form of intelligent design, and whatever the alternative is?

As rockbeer alluded to above, just because there a exists a possibility doesn't infer any type of probability on that possibility. Each unknown possibility is as probable as the other, imo.

I don't really have an alternative to "God" as to where it all came from, but I certainly be of the attitude that whatever caused our planet, galaxy etc. to come into existence neither knows, nor cares about us, or shares any form of consciousness even remotely similar to our own.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

As rockbeer alluded to above, just because there a exists a possibility doesn't infer any type of probability on that possibility. Each unknown possibility is as probable as the other, imo.

That would be the logical answer to the question IMO alright.

I don't really have an alternative to "God" as to where it all came from, but I certainly be of the attitude that whatever caused our planet, galaxy etc. to come into existence neither knows, nor cares about us, or shares any form of consciousness even remotely similar to our own.m

i suppose thats a whole other discussion.

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

As rockbeer alluded to above, just because there a exists a possibility doesn't infer any type of probability on that possibility. Each unknown possibility is as probable as the other, imo.

I don't really have an alternative to "God" as to where it all came from, but I certainly be of the attitude that whatever caused our planet, galaxy etc. to come into existence neither knows, nor cares about us, or shares any form of consciousness even remotely similar to our own.

Quoted for truth.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

Thanks for not assuming I'm trying to twist words etc. there seems to be a certain paranoia amongst others.

Assuming that sideswipe was aimed at me, I'll say that I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly appears as though you're trying to push this discussion in a certain direction that has little do with wanting to understand what people are actually saying, and much to do with you wishing to establish that what you believe to be true is equally as possible as what any given atheist believes to be true. Perhaps you could provide some clarity on this?

JimiTime wrote: »

Can I ask, do you think there is equal possibility of some form of intelligent design, and whatever the alternative is?

Other will no doubt have other answers, but this question is a maths one. Think of it this way:

There is zero evidence for intelligent design. There is zero evidence for any other hypothesis which resides in the realm of pure speculation. There are an infinite number of hypotheses, limited by only your imagination. Therefore the probability of ID being true is equally as improbable as any other hypothesis. Infinitely improbable in fact. Until there's some evidence.

pH

Dades wrote: »

I don't really have an alternative to "God" as to where it all came from, but I certainly be of the attitude that whatever caused our planet, galaxy etc. to come into existence neither knows, nor cares about us, or shares any form of consciousness even remotely similar to our own.

Perhaps more than that is the question of does it matter. Let's take both alternatives the Big bang is a 'natural' phenomena (the Universe somehow created itself or was created by a naturalistic cause) or some intelligent being created the universe.

While it may be interesting to know that the universe was created by some form of supreme being, if it makes no difference to us then so what? It's an intellectual and scientific curiosity.

Christians have a tendency to run a bait and switch here, arguing for this prime mover at the start and somehow switching this to Yahweh/The Baby Jesus in the middle of the argument. Even if there was a prime mover it says nothing about souls, heaven, salvation, sins etc. And if the universe has a natural cause who's to say that a God couldn't have found it and started to care about it.

Either way it seems to make little difference, a God who cares about us could be visiting a universe that had a natural cause, and a God who couldn't care less about some blue dot orbiting one of billions of stars in one of billions of galaxies could have created the whole thing.

It says nothing at all about theism (personal Gods, souls, sins etc).

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote: »

Assuming that sideswipe was aimed at me, I'll say that I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it certainly appears as though you're trying to push this discussion in a certain direction that has little do with wanting to understand what people are actually saying, and much to do with you wishing to establish that what you believe to be true is equally as possible as what any given atheist believes to be true. Perhaps you could provide some clarity on this?

It certainly was aimed at you, and anyone else who may be assuming as such. I don't like your style, as I said on another thread, its a bit too 'all guns blazin' for my liking. I would like to think that this thread has revealed alot, both to me and to others. I started with a premise, quite openly, and entered into discussion. I've hidden nothing, and once again I find your assertion that I'm not wanting to understand what people are saying is merely paranoia. I have enjoyed the discussion in this thread, and find your post above below the standard which has been experienced in the rest of it. Not that the advice of an internet stanger is likely to turn your head, but I'd say you assume too much.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

Perhaps more than that is the question of does it matter.

While it may be interesting to know that the universe was created by some form of supreme being, if it makes no difference to us then so what? It's an intellectual and scientific curiosity.

Even if there was a prime mover it says nothing about souls, heaven, salvation, sins etc. And if the universe has a natural cause who's to say that a God couldn't have found it and started to care about it.

Either way it seems to make little difference, a God who cares about us could be visiting a universe that had a natural cause, and a God who couldn't care less about some blue dot orbiting one of billions of stars in one of billions of galaxies could have created the whole thing.

It says nothing at all about theism (personal Gods, souls, sins etc).

I agree. In the context of this discussion you make a perfectly valid point.

Dades

We seemed to have moved the discussion now to the one in this thread.

No matter though. 'Tis interesting no matter where it is.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote: »

It certainly was aimed at you, and anyone else who may be assuming as such. I don't like your style, as I said on another thread, its a bit too 'all guns blazin' for my liking.

You really wouldn't like me if I was angry

JimiTime wrote: »

I would like to think that this thread has revealed alot, both to me and to others. I started with a premise, quite openly, and entered into discussion. I've hidden nothing, and once again I find your assertion that I'm not wanting to understand what people are saying is merely paranoia. I have enjoyed the discussion in this thread, and find your post above below the standard which has been experienced in the rest of it. Not that the advice of an internet stanger is likely to turn your head, but I'd say you assume too much.

I agree, all in all a very interesting thread. You'll accept that it's valid, given the atheist baiting that goes on, for me to ask you to clarify your intentions? You are a guest on the A & A forum after all.

Not assuming anything, not paranoid, just reading what you've written and wanting to be clear about any subtext that may be lurking behind what you say.

I also note that you haven't actually answered my question.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Can I ask, do you think there is equal possibility of some form of intelligent design, and whatever the alternative is?

It is when little words like that are dropped into the conversation that everything comes to a screeching halt. And we were doing so well :pac:

Because something is unknown and possible (it is unknown if intelligence had any role to play in the formation of the universe but it is certainly possible it did), does not imply anything about how likely it is.

There is no reason to believe intelligence did anything, the universe shows no sign of intelligent design (despite the silly arguments used by the IDers such as the "finely tuned" argument) and the scientific models of the universe do appear to require intelligence

One cannot say if it is equally possible, less possible or more possible. We do not have the ability to make such a judgment at the moment.