Theists and atheists: Reluctant bedfellows

Until the specific fundimental question of existence is answered, all other epistemic and even other ontological questions are moot as there is nothing yet to consider.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good thread for us agnostics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is some deep magic in the words of the article. The one that sticks out at me is how theists clamor to wavering faith and engage in an argument. I mean that is the whole reason I came to sciforums years ago, to argue the existence of God. At that point, I ignored facts and simply had faith. I worked at a Christian bookstore at the time, so I was constantly looking at material to help strengthen the argument that God exists.

The existence of God is a rather pointless debate. But, no matter if the other party actually accepts the arguments or not at that moment, it affects them and wears on them if there is truth to it. And it stands a chance of assimilation down the road...if they are open-minded.

The debate is pointless at the end of the day, but perhaps not for the war.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And yet, despite this "fundamental question of existence" having not been answered, we do consider.

The point being, it's not necessary to wholly (I abstain from using "Absolutely") understand the existence of something to consider it, or even make use of it.

Nonetheless, you do bring up a very interesting point, certainly worthy of a thread of its own.
Of course, a thread on 'what can we say is knowledge?' would have a scary propensity to derail very quickly without a tight set of (at least definitional) parameters right from the start...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

jayleew: Yes, it really is a pointless debate if the goal is getting an objective answer.

Of course, it really does infuriate me to see some arguments that are made towards the different sides. Many atheists are only so because of the bandwagon effect, and don't really understand what atheism means. And then there are some creationists... I'll get to that in a bit. The only really justifiable standpoint if you're trying to get a definite answer is agnosticism.

The Institute for Creation Research has some particularly disappointing arguments in it. While I can't post any specific links due to forum restrictions, there is an entire article about how cause and effect proves god as a "first cause". They go as far as to say

The certainty in this statement is important to note later. They also state:

This COMPLETELY DISREGARDS what we have seen in anything dealing with quantum mechanics. It has been (scientifically, not philosophically - nothing is proven philosophically) proven that many events are random with no particular cause. I e-mailed the ICR to complain about the article, and was told:

So yeah, I guess there is definitely "no question of its [cause and effect] universal acceptance in the world of experimental science", if you completely disregard any experimental sciences that show otherwise. I particularly like how the final paragraph both states that quantum physics is an "unproven theory" (which everything is, really), and that rather than knowing "unproven" physics we only "know [...] what we are told in Genesis 1:1", which *of course* is just *soooooo much* more proven than quantum mechanics.

It is organizations and people like this that discredit science and create discord in trying to find truth. If you want to find this and other flawed arguments for creationism, do a google search for the Institute for Creation Research, and head through to its arguments for god's existence section. The problem is not that they are arguing for creationism, but that their arguments are greatly flawed, and are filled with lines that misguide readers into thinking their position is much more well-established than it is.

Well, that's my rant. Linking back to the topic, thinking about it, I can't really think of any arguments I've read for atheism. It seems that atheists really are the epitome of what is written about in the first post, of one who is certain of their position, as one who knows a chair exists. Rather than arguments for atheism, I've mostly seen arguments against theism. Any atheist argument links?

 

twine

if a theist thinks that ultimately they are required to act to save someone's soul (because god is not in a position to do it for whatever reason) then ultimately they don't have a deity that is omnipotent (hence the suggestion that their theistic outlook is not perfect)

actually the article addresses different issues with atheism.
IOW it suggests that the full application of atheism ("anything is permitted") is the fast track to neurosis.

I think you miss the point.

If you look at atheism that doesn't have the requirement to fulfill its standard party line of FSM and IPU, you have something which balks at fully applying itself that last few hard yards.

 

Signal

I agree that that there are some points of the article that have problems, but I think the essence of it is that philosophy is primarily concerned with truth. Religion, of course, is ideally concerned with the same thing, however the influence of politics tends to spoil the whole thing (regardless whether we are talking theism/atheism or philosophy that attempts to find some neutral ground between the politics of the two).

As you indicate, "practice" is not the forte of philosophy, so traditionally it reserves itself to logic. Actually a big difference between your average sci atheist and the more publicly acclaimed philosophical variety is that the sciforumer primarily goes on about there being "no evidence". This is a frugal offering since evidence is inherently connected to experience, so coming from an atheist's mouth, its expected. The atheist's assertion that there is no evidence for god is not so much a coherent argument but an assertion of their position. (Bertrand Russel's cosmic teapot, the precursor to the IPU and FSM, was established as a response to fideism and its chain of influence- with all its philosophical glamour. Fideism contains many gems such as that ultimately god is unknowable - I recall one minister explaining how god is so big that you can't step back far enough to see him ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

As an alternative, therefore, you find that the well established atheist will argue from the point "Ok you say god exists like A, B and C but this poses problems D, E and F". IOW they don't seek to redefine the nature of god, etc, but rather seek out problems by working with such a definition. This requires a lot more hard work than the average assertions one is likely to encounter on sci.

The use of "appeal to fallacy" has its origins with the latin phrase, ipse dixit (he himself has said it), after the responses that disciples of an ancient scholar used to give whenever an opponent called into question the scholar's doctrine. The problem with ipse dixit proof is that its evidence is reserved to only words. And words alone (as sci so generously illustrates) don't prove anything.

So an Ipse dixit argument is something like "god exists because scripture says so". Referencing scripture to clarify a definition of god or the process accredited for coming to know god is not an ipse dixit argument (even though you may be likely to score an infraction for it on sci).

So in short, the language of philosophy is not one of politics. Even though you can stop midway and say "look I know behind the scenes you are a this or that, so when you say X you really mean Y" that doesn't really constitute philosophical discourse.

sure
collectively or individually we have an array of borrowed plumes

actually the author's view on the absolute truth never came into it for me.
All I saw from him was a carrying through of the logical consequences of what complete atheism or theism entails.

In the case of theism, he suggests that god is completely directing the world.
In the case of atheism he suggests that it has an element that essentially is a shortcut to neurosis, so it never really goes beyond having an image molded around the defamation of theism.

I understand what you are saying, but I think this is all comes under the banner of "I know behind the scenes you are an X so when you say Y you really mean Z". IOW, philosophically speaking, the author has not provided enough rope to hang himself (just yet).

 

Yeah, I entirely missed what the article was saying about atheism. Thanks for the pointer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would disagree that atheism doesn't allow for any kind of morality. Even if such morality is entirely subjective, and in some way everything is permitted, there are still consequences to actions. Something "moral" would be something that helps you achieve your long-term goals (which in most people includes a general lack of pain and suffering in those near you). Since you're human, you would be physically and socially bound to certain morals. I don't see anything "traumatic" about atheism.

Rather, I personally would prefer atheistic morality over theistic morality. The latter can change drastically based on what your religious leaders are telling you is okay. For example, catholic morality might currently have you do everything in your power to stop a rape victim from aborting her child, while atheistic morality (unless you're quite a deviant) would not.

 

Actually theism and atheism are both irrelevant.

Do I care if you believe in my existence? Do I care if you don't believe in my existence?

Pretty silly either way.

Either way would you expect me to burn you alive?

I have children, but I don't want them to worship me.

They can supplicate like crazy, but I don't play favorites.

If one of them screws up, we try to learn from it, make amends when we can and then put it in the past.

Is your god unable to be as good as I am?

I live as if there is no god because there is no evidence that there is a god. But if there actually is a god I have no fear about it because I can't conceive of a god worse than I am and it's pretty obvious any gods are purposely trying to lay low.

But either way, being a theist or an atheist won't change what actually is one whit. They are both a waste of time.

Luckily we have time to waste.

 

But being a theist still comes with some moral imperatives, with some tasks, also in relaion to other living beings - does it not?

As a theist, would you not be remiss (and thus endanger your own salvation) if you would not do particular actions in relation to other living beings?

On the most obvious level, such particular actions can be that you don't kill or cause harm to other living beings for the sake of your pleasure or for food. Also, that you don't act with malignant intentions and cheat or rob others.
But there may be other such actions, for example preaching.

A theist has accepted that he has duties toward God. How do these duties reflect in the way the theist treats other living beings?

IOW, what role or place does preaching, engaging in debate and what appears like 'effort to save others' have in the context of (a person's) theism?

You said earlier that your debating religion is connected to your values, that it strengthens them and is of beneft to you.
Is that all?
Is your engaging in religious debate a mark of your not being fully convinced of your own religious position, and as such your debating is an attempt to convince yourself (as the article suggested that this is why debate takes places)?
Or are you fully sure of your religious position, but are here to preach?

 

I know an excellent article on this.

You're right. After reading the article, I rejected the author in the sense that he is not someone I would wish to closer associate with. It appears this rejection then influenced my judgment on what the article actually says.

 

I think you are making an error of kind here. One which is classic to this sort of debate.

You can consider various concepts of god without need for any god's existence, but you can't actually consider god without god's existence.

Every iota of considering about god which has ever happened is really just considering some person's/people's concept of god.

It has absolutely no actual touch with any real god what-so-ever.

 

How do you know that some person's/people's concept of god has absolutely no actual touch with any real god what-so-ever?

 

Because it is still a question.

 

How is that? You think it makes no difference whether a person 'believes in God' or not? If that is what you think - on the grounds of what do you think that?

What about the man pointing a gun to your head? Or the man pointing a gun to the head of your wife, or your child?

Do you care about whether that man believes in your existence?

Or what about doctors, lawyers, police officers, employers ... - Do you care about whether they believe in your existence?
Or are you truly okay with it when they do as if you don't exist? For example, if you break your leg - open fracture, lots of blood - and are brought to the hospital, but there nobody pays any attention to you and you are left there to die of pain and loss of blood: Or are you truly okay with it when the medical staff do as if you don't exist?

How so?

 

You're probably familiar with the terms "sva dharma" (dharma that pertains to the bodily designation) and "sanatana dharma" (dharma that pertains to the soul) - BG begins with arjuna essentially lodging an argument based on sva dharma

IOW our general experience is that one's religious duty comprises of these two categories. Sva dharma, however, is essentially an aspect of conditioned life. So religious duty becomes an entirely different prospect when one is no longer conditioned.

On the topic of killing, BG gives an excellent instruction on the conflict between the two dharmas. (Would you kill your guru?).

In short, there are a hierarchy of duties recommended to be performed in relation to god, with them all leading up to the final one : saranagati.

Anything else is simply window dressing.

After all, what else could it be but doubt if one "knew" the object and means of surrender, but constantly comes back to the platform "well ...... not right now"?

 

The morality of atheism is summed up by the author as "tolerant hedonism". IOW the "bound" (as you phrase it) to morals is the self.
Its the author's suggestion that the means of avoiding the inevitable "trauma" of atheism is to fall short of the logical imperatives of completely applying the ideology of atheism (IOW the moral imperatives you infer as being intrinsic to atheism are actually intrinsic to other models outside of it ....IOW if you unpack the "tolerance" in "tolerant hedonist" you will more than likely end up with a ethical outline drawn up by dominant theistic influences in society (like the idea that killing and stealing is "bad")

I'm not sure how this example touches the idea of atheists not being subject to radical moral change. In fact if one abhors the notion of radical moral changes, it stands that atheism will be packing more punches.

All the example illustrates is how the atheistic morality is linked to the individual - so if one does something criminal, it might be in one's interest to have recourse to "get your laws off my body" .... if one is the victim of a criminal act however, its in one's interest to have recourse to "get your laws on my body".

 

If I disregarded your existence so far as to infringe on your needs, you most certainly would be concerned .... in some worst case scenarios it might even warrant you making a phone call to your nearest police station

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

probably not ... but then you are also expected to be acting out of a completely different potency than god, so I wouldn't expect you to have an identical modus operandi.
To use a common example, I also don't expect you to dictate foreign policy that would affect my daily lifestyle. This is not to say that there aren't some people who I do expect to act like that. It simply says that I don't think you have the same position or potency like they do.

once again, probably because you are not worshipable .... much like you are probably not a mover and shaker on foreign policy

you must be a barrel of fun on birthdays

A good indication that one is working with a faulty definition of god is when one makes assertions like that.

At a guess, it seems that a lot of your attitudes towards the idea of god are based on fideism - if I also constrained myself to an idea of god that sends people to hell for eternity, I also would have problems ....

On the contrary, you live as if the idea of god is monopolized by fideism ( a not to glamourous contribution of so called christian philosophy - basically boils down to the point that god is so great that he can be irrational and display qualities things like sending a person to hell for eternity for a mental crime - kind of like putting up a big "no tresspassing sign" at the first sign of philosophical inquiry)

Its not clear how either party draws the stakes at close to zero

even if you get 100 years it will be brief

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not a bit of difference to the question of existence.

Belief is irrelevant to existential questions.

There is no such man at the moment. If I decided to believe there is contrary to the evidence would you applaud my faith or think me mad?

No. I've no interest in what non existent people might believe.

If an actual person was there, he wouldn't have to form beliefs about me. He could perceive my manifest existence.

Nope. Actual people can interact with me directly. Belief never enters the question. That is the advantage of actually existing.

How do we have time to waste? We've learned how to control our environment so that we can have leisure time.

 

I did not say "disregard." I said "belief." If you are interacting with me, you obviously know about my existence. Because I have manifest existence there is no point in forming beliefs about my existence. I exist. If you fool around I can make that existence actively manifest instead of passively manifest and smack you around. I'm not at the mercy of your belief or non belief of my existence.

So you expect god to be a worse being than I am. You don't mind god burning you for any errors you make since he has a different "potency."

Funny but worshiping lesser beings of great power doesn't seem that appealing to me.

Birthdays are greatly anticipated around here, so yes I am.

That is a dodge. Is your god not at least as good as I am?

So your concept of god doesn't include hells?

So many concepts. No actual knowledge.

No, it doesn't matter to me that your personal concept of god doesn't include hells. All concepts of god are equally empty.

And yet in that brief time, there is plenty of time to waste.

 

swarm

OK
I don't believe you exist and drive off in what you believe is your car.
Do you call the police?
:shrug:

in principle, no.

Just like I wouldn't mind necessary aspects of authority acting within their "potency" for the sake of equilibrium - like police returning fire to an armed criminal, or governments adjusting social policy for the greater safety of the populations they represent.

It appears that you seem to think that there is no act an eternal living entity can perform that would warrant being burnt. This is very naive. Your discussions about how god "should" act simply makes you sound like an ambitious criminal.

Yet its your god given right to have a barbecue, eh?
:shrug:

I would be interested to hear how you do so without displaying a trace of favoritism.

In your own opinion you also might make a better president - yet the polls aren't swinging in your direction, even though you might have fine ideas about everyone being happy under your rule.

If that's the case, I am yet to hear you post a criticism of god that is not an idea advocated by fideism.

yet no amount of money can buy back a single second that is lost

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!