Atheism as a Faith: The (Hopefully) Final Debate

[hikersong]

I don't know, Mark, I don't know. But I've been promised a whole load of things in the Bible, and if it doesn't pay out, I would get pretty cross.

 

[hikersong]

I would imagine that a female gorilla might be beautiful to a male gorilla, but I doubt that she would be beautiful in the same way to male human beings.

I don't know. I've seen some pretty attractive gorillas.

 

[razeontherock]

The difference, then, is that some people have a profound emotional reaction to the ever-unquenchable thirst for knowledge. Others are satisfied with "God did it".

I think Greg may have addressed this already, but that's an absurd strawman you just knocked over.

 

[razeontherock]

I would not even attribute speech in the literal sense to God ever, and I would be hesitant to do so in a metaphorical sense either. For almost, at least to me, obvious reasons. Speech involves, in the literal sense the creation of speech sounds, by well speech organs. And then there is something about a signal, a sender, and a receiver; this is present in both literal and metaphorical senses of speech.

And as I indicated, I do find it fairly tricky to understand "God speaks ... into existence" in such any such a sense.

I fail to see how you can fail to see that. What does it mean that we were "made in His image, and in His likeness?"

 

[razeontherock]

How can one think or do anything if there is no time? This would be a mindless condition. It would be like being a frozen statue.

According to your definition, that time = change this must be true. that's also why i reject that definition, even though it's very comprehensible, and seems sensible to boot. Following that model, you never have a beginning.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I fail to see how you can fail to see that. What does it mean that we were "made in His image, and in His likeness?"

I have no idea what it means. You are asking the wrong person. But I think, that all too anthropomorphic conceptions of God do not represent the pinnacle of theology. YMMV

 

[Greg1234]

I think Greg may have addressed this already, but that's an absurd strawman you just knocked over.

It's to prevent one from saying that man was created as man, so Darwinism can expand and take over.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I think Greg may have addressed this already, but that's an absurd strawman you just knocked over.

I take it you haven't been on the Physical Sciences board much.

 

[razeontherock]

Sith, that people will become defensive and lose their good judgment is nothing new.

 

[dewaddict84]

What you described, in my vocabulary, is "cause and effect". It's not what I mean by "meaning", but I suppose I take the responsibility for not defining my terms.

I see them as synonyms. What more is there to the meaning of something other then it's cause? What more to purpose than effect? If there is none, then the terms are the same. From the other discussions going on here I've picked up that "meaning" and "purpose" are suppoed to be philosophical thing that somehow originate from the act of thinking about them. This is like that old philosophy question: If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody hears, does it still make a sound?

In short, Yes.

Does the newly acquired ability of killing millions of people with one single bomb count as what you term "progress"?

Yep. So far, for as mad as it seems, mutually assured destruction has keep all the great and super powers from declaring war at each other. It was really scary, but the USA and USSR didn't duke it out. Conventional warfare is dead. It's kinda sad that heavy weights like the USA decide to kick people around in the desert, but we do what we can.

Would I be right in saying you find it depressing when you think about [DEATH], yet have only resigned to not feeling depressed because you know you can't do anything to change it?

Hmmmm, I guess that's kinda near the mark. But not feeling depressed about it IS the same as not finding it depressing. That's, you know, acceptance. But yeah, death isn't a good thing.

Surely that's something you think nature is doing, rather than what nature thinks it's doing?

I'm really not a pantheist. I don't think nature thinks.

Why is it that people fear death?

Well, fear is a very healthy attribute. But we're living, we're part of life. Life is self-perpetuating, it survives. We're hardwired to try to survive. If we weren't, I don't think the species would have gotten this far.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I agree with you saying that it requires a sentient being to understand and "invest" meaning.

I just find it slightly odd that people like to ask why to everyday things: "Why are you doing this? Why are my taxes increasing? Why go to war?" and then agree to resign to not ask why when it comes to nature. Humans like seeking deeper meaning, which is why philosophy and religion exist.

So...don't stop asking why, even about the beginning of the universe.

Well, the three examples you gave go back to the actions of sentient beings, so it makes sense to ask why as there are motives and reasoning (one hopes ) involved. As to the origins of the universe, beginning one's questioning by asking why it exists begs the question, as it already implies that there was an intelligence behind it. It strikes me as more logical to ask how it came to be, and if the one's research leads to the realization that there was an intelligence being behind it, then one would be justified in asking why.

Lol, forgive me, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Well, I don't half blame you. I was struggling for words. Let me try again.

I think your comments on the differences between how an atheist sees meaning as being something which has its origins within the human experience and how a person who adheres to a religious Faith tends to see meaning as something that exists independently of the human experience are coming very close to answering the OP.

This is one very good reason why atheism is not a Faith.

At the same time, using a different definition of faith, an atheist does make a certain commitment to his/her philosophy. We're not engaging in a Pascal's Wager relationship with the Faith(s) with which we rub shoulders (for me the Christian Faith). We are convinced enough to live according to our conclusions.

My concern in this whole conversation (sparse though my contribution has been) is that there are those who wish to pin the label of Faith on atheism in the same way one pins it on Christianity in hopes that doing so will somehow minimize our position, call our integrity into question or take the wind out of our rhetoric. I have seen some, in their eagerness to do this, applying one meaning of the word to their own experience and another to the atheists experiences as if this has accomplished something, when doing so is simply a logical fallacy.

The most common example I've seen used is the concept of having faith that if one sits in a chair it will hold one's weight. Unless this is Chairism and one hopes to obtain tax exempt status for sitting, this is not a Faith. That is how I treat atheism. If I "sit down on it" I expect it to hold my weight. If it proves not to, I will find something else to rely upon for my philosophical purposes.

That conclusion of "angst changes nothing as to the state of things" is ultimately an atheist point of view, and I respect it as so. That will not be (or should not be) the conclusion by a Christian. I am merely pointing out the difference, not extolling which view is better.

I am intrigued. How is it, from the Christian perspective, that angst itself changes the state of things?