Atheism: new religion?

[onewheeldave]

but he doesn't so why would you claim he does?

 

What?

 

Dawkins doesn't what? and what do you think I'm claiming?

[llamatron]

What?

 

Dawkins doesn't what? and what do you think I'm claiming?

 

he doesn't claim there is no possible evidence he just can't state what form evidence would come in

[Lockjaw]

Well, Dawkins/the atheist community ....blah

 

Hiya Dave.

 

Reading this thread, with interest, I have noticed you using the term "atheist community" on many occasions. This, in my opinion, reveals a difficulty faced by religious people when attempting to understand atheists.

 

Could you tell us what you mean by the "atheist community"? Would it be similar to the non-stamp-collecting community or do you feel it is something more organised?

[six45ive]

Jung's answer was, in essence, that he couldn't prove they were real, and, that it was of no importance to him, because, they worked, in his life.

He felt that, through his interactions with such things, he got good results. And, he did not care if those results came via real, existing entities, or whether they came via aspects of his own mind.

 

And that's OK but why the need to call this unfathomable thing god when he couldn't prove they were real and had no explanation and didn't require an explanation? Just be honest and call it what you definitely know it to be, a certain state of mind that makes you feel good.

 

Similarly, if some one feels God at work in their lives, and, that it is good, they're probably not going to be worrying about trying to prove the unprovable- why should they?

 

Because as I previously said, which is the vital point that you seem to wish to ignore, 'beliefs inform actions'. If you're a JW that doesn't believe in allowing your child to get a blood transfusion because your holy book/little voice in your head is vaguely telling you that doing so would be agaginst god's will then the consequences are clear for all to see.

 

Why should they attempt to do something impossible (prove the unprovable), when the only likely result is going to be stress?

 

They don't have to prove the unprovable. This absolute proof that you're looking for is a complete red herring.

In my experience it's a lot less stressful when you understand the real world a bit more and are more honest with yourself and with those around you.

[onewheeldave]

he doesn't claim there is no possible evidence he just can't state what form evidence would come in

 

Yes.

 

It's me whose claiming that there is no possible evidence- I just so on the grounds of rationality, in that, having thought long and hard about it, can think of nothing that could convince a rationalist of God's existence.

 

Going a bit empirical, I've floated the idea amongst atheists here, challenging them to put forward possible evidence.

 

Most have declined to even make an attempt.

 

a couple have taken up the challenge- that's still ongoing, so we'll see if it turns anything up.

 

That aside, Dawkins presents himself as an ambassodoor of rationality and attacks religious belief, in part, on the basis that it is not rational.

 

As such, he should be able to spot, as well as me, that his statement that he will change his mind if evidence is forthcoming, is somewhat dubious, rationally speaking, as, to now, not a single rationalist/atheist has any idea whatsoever, of what would constitute valid evidence for God.

 

Indeed, the evidence for the possible existence of such evidence, is as lacking as evidence for God

[llamatron]

Yes.

 

It's me whose claiming that there is no possible evidence- I just so on the grounds of rationality, in that, having thought long and hard about it, can think of nothing that could convince a rationalist of God's existence.

 

Going a bit empirical, I've floated the idea amongst atheists here, challenging them to put forward possible evidence.

Most have declined to even make an attempt.

 

a couple have taken up the challenge- that's still ongoing, so we'll see if it turns anything up.

 

That aside, Dawkins presents himself as an ambassodoor of rationality and attacks religious belief, in part, on the basis that it is not rational.

 

As such, he should be able to spot, as well as me, that his statement that he will change his mind if evidence is forthcoming, is somewhat dubious, rationally speaking, as, to now, not a single rationalist/atheist has any idea whatsoever, of what would constitute valid evidence for God.

 

Indeed, the evidence for the possible existence of such evidence, is as lacking as evidence for God

 

you keep quoting dawkins and then adding your opinion as if he is saying it. You are saying he should not claim there is a way of changing his mind when there is no possible evidence. He is not saying there is no possible evidence though, you are asserting that for him then questioning him for it?

 

The bold bit, again, is nonsensical. Actually I could have highlighted all of that. It all makes no sense.

[onewheeldave]

Hiya Dave.

 

Reading this thread, with interest, I have noticed you using the term "atheist community" on many occasions. This, in my opinion, reveals a difficulty faced by religious people when attempting to understand atheists.

 

Could you tell us what you mean by the "atheist community"? Would it be similar to the non-stamp-collecting community or do you feel it is something more organised?

 

I'm referring to the collection of people who don't believe in God, and, in particular, the vocal ones who post on threads like this, and, the collection of atheists who tend to associate themselves with Dawkins and his views.

 

Now, not all atheist are the same or think the same, but, certainly, the ones I encounter on threads like this, tend to have several major things in common, they tend to come out with the same rebuttals (for example 'you can't prove a negative etc, etc').

 

That's what i mean by atheist community- it's just a convenient shorthand for pointing to a particualr group- probably not exact, i expect it can be picked apart by any passing pedants, but, it seems to work in the context of discussions like this.

[llamatron]

I'm referring to the collection of people who don't believe in God, and, in particular, the vocal ones who post on threads like this, and, the collection of atheists who tend to associate themselves with Dawkins and his views.

 

Now, not all atheist are the same or think the same, but, certainly, the ones I encounter on threads like this, tend to have several major things in common, they tend to come out with the same rebuttals (for example 'you can't prove a negative etc, etc').

 

That's what i mean by atheist community- it's just a convenient shorthand for pointing to a particualr group- probably not exact, i expect it can be picked apart by any passing pedants, but, it seems to work in the context of discussions like this.

 

 

There is a reason why they all use the old "you can't prove a negative" line. Lets see if you can work out what it is?

[onewheeldave]

And that's OK but why the need to call this unfathomable thing god when he couldn't prove they were real and had no explanation and didn't require an explanation? Just be honest and call it what you definitely know it to be, a certain state of mind that makes you feel good.

 

 

 

Ah! Let me clarify- he didn't call it/them god/gods, that was never what he had in mind.

 

The options as he saw them were-

 

1. entites that were real in the sense they had consciousness just as we do, existing maybe in physical reality, maybe in a alternate non-physical reality

 

or

 

2. aspects of his own mind (possibly subconscious/unconscious mind)

 

He didn't claim they were definitly 2, presumably because there was no way to prove it, and, he had no interest in attempting proof, because the important thing was that it worked for him when he used them, so their exact ontological status was not important to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because as I previously said, which is the vital point that you seem to wish to ignore, 'beliefs inform actions'. If you're a JW that doesn't believe in allowing your child to get a blood transfusion because your holy book/little voice in your head is vaguely telling you that doing so would be agaginst god's will then the consequences are clear for all to see.

 

 

I'd say that sometimes 'beliefs inform actions'.

 

And i agree fully that, in the rather extreme case of JWs and blood transfusions- those actions are unfortunate.

 

But, it's a tendency of atheists to attack extremists/fundamentalists- which is OK as long as they realise that most such attacks do not apply to most non-extremist believers.

 

With Quakers for example, who tend to see God in a very inward way and do not use their 'feeling of God' to attack others in any way (eg no preaching or attempts to convert), whose faith is a quiet one and whose beliefs only inform actions to the extent that they choose to sit in silence with their community, in Gods presence, for a hour every week.

 

 

 

 

 

They don't have to prove the unprovable. This absolute proof that you're looking for is a complete red herring.

In my experience it's a lot less stressful when you understand the real world a bit more and are more honest with yourself and with those around you.

 

I'm not loking for proof- I've got zero interest in proving the existence or non-existence of God.

[onewheeldave]

you keep quoting dawkins and then adding your opinion as if he is saying it. You are saying he should not claim there is a way of changing his mind when there is no possible evidence. He is not saying there is no possible evidence though, you are asserting that for him then questioning him for it?

 

The bold bit, again, is nonsensical. Actually I could have highlighted all of that. It all makes no sense.

 

I Know Dawkins is not saying there is no possible evidence.