Atheists under attack

[PaliRichard]

This is why the term ignostic is necessary as it places the onus upon theists to come up with a meaningful definition so that its existence can then be debated in a meaningful way. In lieu of such a definition any debate is pointless as there is nothing meaningful to debate.

 

jb

 

That's why the term ignostic is not only entirely unecessary but also ignores one of the biggest of the Theists belief's, that God cannot be known.

 

This is why in Islam God has 'names' that reflect his attributes - humans cannot know God directly so they reflect on his attributes which they can know.

 

It is precisely those attributes, along with claims made by the religious/religious texts that can be tested for evidence. The onus is on the religious to prove the things that can be tested.

 

Putting the onus onto someone to prove something they themselves admit can't be proven is just silly, and shows the complete lack of understanding in the ignostic position. If you want to bandy about philosophy if its fine, for anything meaningful it's a complete waste of time.

[PaliRichard]

You are trying to draw a distinction that does not exist.

If you don't believe in a god, then you believe that there is no god.[/Quote]

 

Nope.

 

Why anyone would ask them to provide evidence for a belief in a negative I don't know. But it certainly wouldn't put them in a difficult position, it would give them a good laugh at the lack of understanding of the person asking for proof of a negative though.[/Quote]

 

This is where many 'anti theists' get tripped up. If you have a belief that there is no God it isn't a negative, a belief is a positive position and therefore if you claim to have one you should be able to back it up with evidence (or at the very least reasonable philosophy). The fact that you 'believe' there isn't something is irrelevant, the belief itself is still a positive position - in such a case your evidence may rely on positions put forward by those that do believe (and disproving it), but you still need to quantify that belief in some way.

 

We are certainly born without a belief in a god, although not born with a belief that there is no god since we are incapable of forming beliefs at that point[/Quote]

 

That's what I (and others) have been trying to tell you, you can't just agree with us and say 'but you're still wrong'. This statement totally contradicts the first point that there is no distinction!

 

But your (incorrect) definition is meaningless as it now means that I can describe a rock as an atheist, since it is incapable of forming beliefs.

 

Atheist is a term applied specifically to people, I think roots? already made this distinction, humans can be vegetarians, sheep are herbivores, the same essentials vary because they are applied to different species/things.

[barleycorn]

That's why the term ignostic is not only entirely unecessary but also ignores one of the biggest of the Theists belief's, that God cannot be known.

 

This is why in Islam God has 'names' that reflect his attributes - humans cannot know God directly so they reflect on his attributes which they can know.

 

Which is exactly what ignosticism demonstrates to be complete twaddle. Simply stating what a thing can do, likes to do or has done provides absolutely no justification for linking such secondary characteristic's to any particular god concept because no relationship can be established without first identifying the fundamental nature of god. As such the term god is completely meaningless.

 

It is precisely those attributes, along with claims made by the religious/religious texts that can be tested for evidence. The onus is on the religious to prove the things that can be tested.

 

Which attributes do you think can be tested and how would they be evidnce for 'God'?

 

Putting the onus onto someone to prove something they themselves admit can't be proven is just silly, and shows the complete lack of understanding in the ignostic position. If you want to bandy about philosophy if its fine, for anything meaningful it's a complete waste of time.

 

I haven't asked for proof of gods existence, that would be silly as theists don't even know what their god is. The whole point of ignosticism is to GIVE meaning to the debate. Right now there isn't any (outside of the subjective anyway).

 

jb

[EbonyBranch]

That describes agnosticism, not atheism.

If you believe something contrary to proposition a (that there is a god) then you cannot also be ambivalent about prop a, not if you wish to be logically consistent in your beliefs anyway.

That would be an agnostic.

That can't be an atheist without holding that opinion.

This broadens atheist so much that it encompasses agnostic, and so you end up with people calling themselves agnostic atheists, when simply agnostic would be sufficient to describe their lack of belief.

 

No, no and no. Wrong on every count. I am an agnostic atheist. Gnostic/agnostic deal with knowledge, theist/atheist deal with belief.

 

At the most fundamental level, I lack a belief in any gods. Therefore, I am an atheist. I also lack the knowledge necessary to assert that there are absolutely no gods (or that there are gods); therefore, I am fundamentally agnostic on the existence of gods.

 

However, as I've already explained, I have examined and comprehensively refuted the specific arguments and evidence put forward for all of the gods so far presented to me. Regarding those gods I am a gnostic atheist, or a hard atheist or whatever term is preferred - I am confident enough to positively say that they do not exist in the terms by which they have been described to me, because the properties attributed to them are self-contradictory. (For example; YHVH is said to be personal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. An omniscient and/or omnipotent being cannot be personal, so the omniscient, personal YHVH of the Bible cannot exist. An alternative view of YHVh as just a very powerful, very knowledgeable being is possible, but then the problem of evil undermines that entity's claim to be benevolent. At best, you're left with an imperfect, well-meaning being who is more powerful and more knowledgeable than humans. How many Christians, Muslims or Jews worship THAT god?).

 

Regarding the deist concept of a wholly transcendent, non-immanent, non-interventionist, possibly absent creator god; I lack the knowledge to say anything about such an entity. By definition, it is undetectable, so no one can have any knowledge about it. In that regard, I am agnostic.

 

I might still believe that the universe must have had a creator; I could be an agnostic deist (or even an agnostic theist, or a christian deist, etc.). However, as such a being is defined in ways that make it inherently undetectable, I can have no evidence to indicate that belief in it is reasonable, so I personally also lack belief. I know plenty of deists who persist in their belief despite the lack of evidence, but as their god is wholly transcendent and remote from the immanent world, they rarely try to impose any supposedly religiously inspired morality on others. If evidence of the deist god became accessible I would have to reassess this belief; if that evidence became irrefutable then I could claim to have knowledge of the deist god.

 

In all cases; present me with compelling evidence and I might believe. Present me with irrefutable fact and I might know. Until then, I am an agnostic atheist.

 

Do you understand now why the difference between agnostic and atheist is important?

[barleycorn]

... But I'd go further and say the same applies to discussions on how the universe came into existance, yet cosmologists have dedated this subject at lenghth and are now satisfied that the universe may have always existed without need of a cause or a creator, which in effect is dismissing the primary attributes that can define why and how it may have always existed without need of a cause or a creator. So debating this topic would be just meaningless wouldn't it?

 

They are by no means 'satisfied'. There are several hypothesis around how the universe 'began' but I think you will find these are quite clearly defined.

 

jb

[PaliRichard]

Which is exactly what ignosticism demonstrates to be complete twaddle. Simply stating what a thing can do, likes to do or has done provides absolutely no justification for linking such secondary characteristic's to any particular god concept because no relationship can be established without first identifying the fundamental nature of god. As such the term god is completely meaningless[/Quote]

 

Which if true there would be no Theistic religion, at all, ever.

 

As there are Theistic religions, and many of them, we can safely assume that identifying the fundamental nature of God is not paramount to having a relationship with that God - in exactly the same way as understanding the fundamental of gravity is in no way connected to having a 'relationship' with gravity - the characteristics of gravity are all that is needed for it to have an effect, likewise the charateristics of God - his 'nature' is not neccesary for that relationship to take place.

 

Which attributes do you think can be tested and how would they be evidnce for 'God'?[/Quote]

 

God is all wise - let's look at the 'word of God', the Quran, in it we are told that the stars are closer to the Earth than the sun and the moon, in it we are told that humans are unlike all other animals because there is homosexuality present in humans. Both can be demonstrated to be incorrect, therefore God cannot be all wise.

 

I haven't asked for proof of gods existence, that would be silly as theists don't even know what their god is. The whole point of ignosticism is to GIVE meaning to the debate. Right now there isn't any (outside of the subjective anyway).

 

jb

 

But it can't give meaning to the debate because it relies on trying to acheive a 'definition' for something that no one claims is definable - but it is knowable, do you not understand the difference?

 

Using it in such debates is absolutely pointless, it seems to be there just to try to acheive some kind of philosophical one upmanship but it makes the people using it look daft, because it is absolutely surplous to requirement.

 

If you had no scientific knowledge of the wind you wouldn't claim because you had no way of knowing it's fundamental nature that talking about it is pointless until it was defined, because it could still blow your house down or cause a wave to drown you - you'd discuss its attributes, likewise with God, there are measurable attributes claimed by believers - rather than saying it's pointless discussing God until 'it' is defined, we can talk about/disprove its attributes, which have a very real effect on those who believe.

[redwhine]

This is why "without belief" is the broadest definition, it is the absolute minimum required to be an atheist.

It's actually the maximum required to be an atheist.

 

Nothing else is required. Anything less is not atheism.

[mikem8634]

I think you're confusing atheism with criticism of religion, sometimes confusingly called anti-theism.

 

Theism and atheism have no doctrines or moral guidelines, they are just positions held with respect to a single question. Belief, or lack of, in a deity alone motivates nothing. Theism and atheism are not religions.

 

Some of the opinions you mention aren't motivated by atheism, but by something else, a dislike of religion (which I share), or humanism.

 

If people want to believe in god let them. If it makes them feel good, fine. As long as it stays out of politics and other people’s lives, let them get on with it. I have no problem with theism alone. Unfortunately religion doesn't stay out of other people's lives, and it is this aspect that I am critical of irrespective of my atheism.

 

 

I disagree that I am confusing atheism with anti-theism as I'm already pretty aware of the distinctions, but what I am doing is not making myself very clear.

 

I don't think that atheism carries inherent doctrines or moral guidelines or is a religion.

 

I do think that atheism, as a position held with respect to a single question, influences, for example, the moral framework a person adopts just as a belief in religion does.

 

Perhaps I should have said that atheism can be the foundation for a worldview.

 

This article covers some of the same ground.

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/article/atheism-way-life/

 

 

"Atheism as a Way of Life

Keith S Cornish

That anyone should desire information on the value system of atheists is prima facie evidence that atheists are presumed to be different. It is therefore appropriate that consideration should be given to the commonly accepted value systems before the atheist viewpoint is put forward.

 

A pecking order is common in the animal kingdom and becomes more highly developed as the mental powers become more sophisticated.

 

In family life the code of behaviour may be dictated by the dominant male or female or some times by a dual approach. With the development of tribal life the bravest and strongest assumed the mantle of authority. The one with the most heads, scalps, wives, cattle, etc. became the chieftain. It was a small step to kings and lineage, to armies and the ability to physically enforce the rules of the ruler.

 

Sometimes it was the most wily who managed to be ‘top dog’ and occasionally it was the most wise who adjudicated when problems arose, though often they played second fiddle to the bully-boy.

 

Obviously rules are necessary to enable people to live together in societies. Imagine driving on our roads and freeways without road rules or running a restaurant without hygiene standards.

 

This leads to the question of who or what should lay down the rules and who or what should ensure that they are being observed.

 

To the Greeks belongs the honour of conceiving the idea of democracy as an alternative to a single authority. The Greek model was very narrow with only a segment of society being deemed worthy of participating. It took well over 2000 years for women to be given the right to partake in our political process of election and they are still excluded from many institutions and societies.

 

The British can claim the honour of clipping the wings of the absolute monarch who claimed to rule by ‘divine’ right and to begin the process which has led to the parliaments of today.

 

We elect our representatives to formulate both our laws and rules of general behaviour and the procedures to be followed when they are disobeyed.

 

We are all very much aware of the consequences when society reverts to one man or a limited clique dictating the rules and having the ability to enforce them.

 

For four thousand years there have been men who have attempted to set forth rules to ensure that society functioned equitably for all.

 

The first recorded of these was the Babylonian King Hammurabi c23OOBC whose laws were found engraved in cuneiform script. He has been identified with Amraphel of Genesis. The ten commandments of the Biblical Moses may well have had their source in this ancient code.

 

The Pharaohs of Egypt decreed codes; many of which were contained in the Book of the Dead.

 

The Greeks produced many outstanding philosophers whose ideas have found a place in our laws and methods of determining the most appropriate way of resolving problems. The Roman Empire required a very wide range of laws and they form the basis of our laws today.

 

Many of the myths and laws of the Hebrews came from their neighbours, usually as the result of them being captives in powerful empires. To give authority to their rules the priests declared that their chief god Yahweh was the author and hence that the laws were binding.

 

Confucius (c5OOBC) whose teachings were enshrined as a religion was one of a long line of philosophers extending to the present day.

 

Philosophies which purported to have super natural backing often gave rise to particular religions, especially when given written form and considered sacred – The Vedas (c1OOOBC), parts of the Old Testament (c5OOBC), the New Testament (100AD), the Koran (c650AD) and the Book of Mormon (21st Sept 1823) etc.

 

A vital question arises in regard to these philosophers, rulers, books, religious organisations and men and women claiming supernatural authority. What degree of credibility and authority should we grant them? To an atheist who has sifted the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the 10,000+ supernatural beings are figments of human imagination the answer is straightforward.

 

There are no codes or laws in concrete form given by any supernatural being. There are plenty which claim to have supernatural input but on examination they fail to measure up to the best which humans can devise. Therefore atheists claim that humankind must determine the best rules according to the situation. We do not consider that any one man in the past or in the present has had the wisdom to dictate to humanity as a whole, for all time and in every situation, the one correct course of action.

 

Atheists maintain the right to collectively winnow the best from the past and the present and advocate that fellow citizens meet that standard. We see no justification for according to one person or to a specific group of people the authority to impose their particular codes or standards on society at large.

 

Being an atheist in no way implies that he/she will be ethically correct in every situation. Human beings are not biologically programmed that way. Being an atheist implies that he/she has the ability to weigh the pros and cons of a proposition and reach a rational conclusion. In real life some decisions must be made in a split second and instinct, rather than conscious mental thought, is often the determining factor. Further, atheists consider that humans and all sentient animal life must be accorded basic rights and we honour people such as Thomas Paine, who 200 years ago set forth a list of rights, all of which have not yet been fully granted anywhere in the world. Though written specifically for the USA, France and England, they apply to everyone everywhere.

 

Just as rational thought and scientific method has solved countless problems in physics, health, astronomy, chemistry, government, agriculture etc, we, as atheists, strive to use the same technique to define ethical problems and to solve them.

 

Whilst religion promises eternal bliss or ever lasting torment as the consequence for right or wrong behaviour as inducements to ‘toe the line’, atheists reject such ‘carrot and stick’ procedures. Hypothetical ‘pie in the sky’ may secure the desired result with the ignorant but not with a sophisticated society.

 

Humans are but a small part of the life forms of a natural world and, though we may consider ourselves to be at the top of the evolutionary sequence, there is no evidence of any specific gulf separating us from other branches of our type. The idea of a supernatural element is simply the result of human arrogance and has no basis in fact. Human beings today must be convinced that a specific action or activity is for their own well-being and the well-being of society. Even purely altruistic behaviour must be seen to be for someone’s benefit.

 

Strictly speaking a person is an atheist when he or she comes to the realisation that supernatural beings do not exist and, by extension, that there is no supernatural realm.

 

It is not possible or desirable to lay down hard and fast ethical codes which would apply everywhere, every time. Ethics must always be determined by the situation and seldom, if ever, would the same set of circumstances apply.

 

It is far better to aim for the happiness and well being of individuals and society than to try to compel people to accept a moral code into which they had no input, especially when that code is not based on fact or reason but on myth, superstition and primitive suppositions.

 

IN SUMMARY ATHEISTS:

 

* Maintain that the scientific method has been outstanding in separating fact from fiction. It has enabled humankind to understand the natural laws and produced the enormous benefits which we presently enjoy.

* Declare that, in the total absence of any empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural dimension or beings, all religions based on such beliefs should be rejected, together with the ethical codes based thereon.

* Denounce the brainwashing of children which is the pre-eminent method by which religious and political organisations maintain the numbers and strength of their organisations. This is the principal cause of the confrontation and conflict between communities, countries and nations.

* Deplore the fact that children in particular are being taught to accept propositions based on myths and superstition and are not being taught to question and reach conclusions through the exercise of reason.

* Reject the notion of a scapegoat being an effective alternative to personal responsibility.

* Reject the proposition that it is morally acceptable to threaten punishment and promise rewards in a mythical after-life to secure compliance with a particular code of conduct.

* Deplore the fact that faith is accorded pre-eminence over reason and not subjected to in-depth evaluation.

* Reject the idea of ‘truth’ as being an entity and consider that all propositions ought to be considered on their merit.

* Recognise that knowledge is seldom complete and therefore we remain forever ready to change as increasing knowledge requires it.

* Insist on the democratic principle of the individual’s right to partake in the framing of all binding laws, be they political, secular, moral or whatever.

* Object to any law or code which fails when submitted to rational and empirical scrutiny, particularly those which are based on so-called revelation from some supernatural entity or source.

* Reject the proposition that some races are intrinsically superior, that women are inferior to men and that men should have exclusive positions of power and authority.

* Reject the proposition that all people are born equal but insist that everyone should be accorded equal rights.

* Recognise that no one is an island and therefore it behoves everyone to work for the betterment of all by solving the glaring problems which flawed philosophies and powerful organisations have created.

* Recognise that everyone is genetically unique and consider that they have the right to act as they see fit provided that such actions do not have undue negative effect on other individuals or on society.

* Consider that society should encourage and assist everyone to reach their full beneficial potential."

 

 

 

In very very basic terms the article suggests that - I am an atheist and that single principle leads me to view ethics and morality, and their applications in and to society. in a particular way.

[danot]

No such understanding regarding the origin of the universe has been reached.

 

They are by no means 'satisfied'. There are several hypothesis around how the universe 'began' but I think you will find these are quite clearly defined.

 

jb

 

Oh come on. They claim to know and are more than satisfied that nothing existed before time and space so how else could time and space exist? They persist that there's no need to invoke a creator then assert that the universe may have(and please note that I did say "may have")always existed. Cosmologists have made this claim numerous times, and so have atheists on SF when discrediting the creationist argument in religious threads. It seems science and some atheists that use their theory in religious dedates are overlooking the basic principles of the laws of contemporary science in order to discredit the existance of a creator that may or may not have always existed outside of our or any other universe that might exist or even beyond what we haven't yet discovered or contemplated. I just find it mindboggling that the creationist argument is routinely discredited because the premice of the argument isn't logical, yet despite claim- "nothing existed before time and space" being equally ilogical to a logical thinker; it is still routinely claimed that nothing existed before time and space. They're using one ilogical argument to discredit another ilogical argument.

[danot]

I believe in gravity, but only because I can observe proof of the theory.

 

Does that mean you have no belief in anything unless there's observable proof that supports a plausable theory ? Do you believe nothing existed before time and space?