Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[KCfromNC]

Ooh, where to start?

Respect enough to actually listen to how members of a group define themselves, perhaps?

Actually listening when common misconceptions about what atheism is are pointed out?

It's easier to hate the enemy if you can demonize them. That's tough to do if you treat them as actual reasonable human beings. It's easy when you tell them what they believe and claim you know better than them what they think about their beliefs. It's even easier when you mistake any disagreement with abuse and persecution.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thanks for the reply. All these claims of course are done by generic atheists

References, please.

 

[Gadarene]

It's easier to hate the enemy if you can demonize them. That's tough to do if you treat them as actual reasonable human beings. It's easy when you tell them what they believe and claim you know better than them what they think about their beliefs. It's even easier when you mistake any disagreement with abuse and persecution.

I wouldn't put it down as demonisation - disrespectful, sure, but that's not necessarily the intent. This quibbling over whether atheism is a religion or whether we're all really agnostics or whatever is (a) a (failed) attempt to seek some kind of parity in order to make actual religious believers more exempt from scrutiny or criticism, and (b) totally irrelevant to the actual matter of whether or not the religions that atheism rejects are true or not, as redefining the opposing stance does nothing to address the (lack of a) case for the religions.

Neither inspire much confidence in a belief that claims to be the one truth. Such tactics would not be necessary if it actually had anything going for it.

 

[Vainslain]

Oh, you're a presuppositionalist.

I account for those things well enough, and largely because I don't have an excessively rationalistic epistemology. That is where presuppositionalism crashes and burns. Its rationalism requires that all human thought rest on unsupported premises, which is a philosophical dead end. Of course, it makes an appeal to a pure act of imagination in a literal deus ex machina to save them from that dead end, but in truth it remains a dead end.

IMV, one doesn't have to prove human reason valid in some rationalistic fashion. Rather, one learns how to use one's rational faculty through life experience, and one comes to gain confidence in certain patterns of thought through its use. There may be a few self-evident axioms underlying concepts (such as "stuff exists"), but they don't require supernatural justification. There is no need for suprahuman certainty or suprarational knowledge here. Knowledge is a human trait, and attempts to make it divine only end up in philosophical confusion.

By the authority of reality and the means of human reason. This is entirely sufficient.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes I'm a presuppositionslist whatever you want to call it. You can cite links that deals against it but here's the fact and i would like to make it simple: that even them can't get away from their own pressupositions. And that's the main thing we're driving at. Whether they can stand in their own standard for reasoning. Its impossible to be in a nuetral zone in this case. The bottom line is and eventually i know that's where you gonna end up saying is that human reason is sufficient to prove reality. Since you got no refrerence point for your knowledge unlike theists so human reason can be subjective since reasoning has also been a tool of those who disagree with your view. So who is the one to arbitrate on truth department then? You can claim it's your position. So do I. You got a dilemma here just trying to find a solid ground. You can label our side supernatural looking for an appeal to imagination. These question begging ephitets doesn't really count for good logic. It only shows how confine you are to naturalistic worldview and it's obvious flaws. And of course you have to use reason to validate your point to prove that "one doesn't have to prove human reason valid in some rationalistic fashion." are you trying to be rationally inconsistent here? Why not try not to use your human reason to validate what you said here. That would make sense. Taking a dig at pressups won't necessarily make a good case because when it comes to arbitrariness and inconsistency atheism leads the way

 

[Vainslain]

Logic, reason, and empirical evidence.

Thanks. But in an atheist universe what exactly are logic and reason? Are they something physical that exist inside our head? A Chemical activity in the brain that gives meaning and concepts? You have to prove what they are and why they work in the atheist world of matter and motion. Now by empirical evidence how can you lab test or run a experiment on a truth statement itself?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thanks. But in an atheist universe what exactly are logic and reason?

Logic is how we can take one true statement and deduce the truth of another. More generally, it is the sixteen fundamental laws of logic and all they derive and imply. Reason is a nebulous term, but broadly means basing one's beliefs and decisions on what is sensible and rational and logical and justifiable.

Are they something physical that exist inside our head?

Our chemically brains can certainly understand logic, but logic doesn't 'exist' inasmuch as it isn't a thing.

A Chemical activity in the brain that gives meaning and concepts? You have to prove what they are and why they work in the atheist world of matter and motion. Now by empirical evidence how can you lab test or run a experiment on a truth statement itself?

Well, that's why I said logic, reason, and empirical evidence. They are taken together.

If you'll excuse my poetic flourish: empirical evidence tells us what is, logic tells us what isn't, and reason is born from both. A hundred caveats should be appended for it to be absolute, but that's the general gist of it.

Logic tells us that 1 + 1 = 2, and that "1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement, and that "1 + 1 = 3" is a false statement. Empirical evidence and logic taken together (aka, 'reason') tell us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that stormy clouds are predicators of rain, that apparently solid matter is largely empty space, etc.

 

[Gadarene]

Atheism does not imply no axioms, just no gods.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Atheism does not imply no axioms, just no gods.

Ah, but without God you have basis for believing anything! By specious logic, you can deduce the logical necessity for God's existence as the core foundation of logic!

Wait, why do I feel dizzy...

 

[Mling]

Logic is how we can take one true statement and deduce the truth of another. More generally, it is the sixteen fundamental laws of logic and all they derive and imply. Reason is a nebulous term, but broadly means basing one's beliefs and decisions on what is sensible and rational and logical and justifiable.


Our chemically brains can certainly understand logic, but logic doesn't 'exist' inasmuch as it isn't a thing.


Well, that's why I said logic, reason, and empirical evidence. They are taken together.

If you'll excuse my poetic flourish: empirical evidence tells us what is, logic tells us what isn't, and reason is born from both. A hundred caveats should be appended for it to be absolute, but that's the general gist of it.

Logic tells us that 1 + 1 = 2, and that "1 + 1 = 2" is a true statement, and that "1 + 1 = 3" is a false statement. Empirical evidence and logic taken together (aka, 'reason') tell us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that stormy clouds are predicators of rain, that apparently solid matter is largely empty space, etc.

I'd point out that logic is based on the physical reality of cause and effect, and is a natural extension of our ability to see a physical event and consistently predict the physical result of it (that rock is flying at me it is going to hit me in....3....2....time to duck!) That thought process is a physical phenomenon, in that it happens through a physical series of neurons, through biochemical events.

Even when it moves beyond basic cause and effect, into more philosophical concepts, though, good logic stays pretty well connected to the physical world, in that the results are testable: "Gravity pulls everything down, but some things are heavy and others things are light. It makes sense, then that gravity is pulling on the heavy things harder--which is what makes them heavy. So, if I drop this heavy thing and this light thing, the heavy thing should fall faster. Huh...looks like I was wrong. My logic must be based on flawed assumptions. I should go figure out what was wrong."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'd point out that logic is based on the physical reality of cause and effect, and is a natural extension of our ability to see a physical event and consistently predict the physical result of it (that rock is flying at me it is going to hit me in....3....2....time to duck!) That thought process is a physical phenomenon, in that it happens through a physical series of neurons, through biochemical events.

Even when it moves beyond basic cause and effect, into more philosophical concepts, though, good logic stays pretty well connected to the physical world, in that the results are testable: "Gravity pulls everything down, but some things are heavy and others things are light. It makes sense, then that gravity is pulling on the heavy things harder--which is what makes them heavy. So, if I drop this heavy thing and this light thing, the heavy thing should fall faster. Huh...looks like I was wrong. My logic must be based on flawed assumptions. I should go figure out what was wrong."

Well, one could argue that this is an emotional claim rather than a logical one, as logic was never used to deduce the truth of the conclusion from a set of premises. And even if it were, logic wouldn't be at fault, it would more likely be your premise: "heavy things fall faster than light things".

 

[Gadarene]

I'd point out that logic is based on the physical reality of cause and effect, and is a natural extension of our ability to see a physical event and consistently predict the physical result of it (that rock is flying at me it is going to hit me in....3....2....time to duck!) That thought process is a physical phenomenon, in that it happens through a physical series of neurons, through biochemical events.

I've often thought that logic reflects physical reality, but in different ways.

Causality is a consquence of 2LoT? Arrow of time, &c.
Something like the law of non-contradiction can only happen in a universe where physical laws don't spontaneously change?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes I'm a presuppositionslist whatever you want to call it. You can cite links that deals against it but here's the fact and i would like to make it simple: that even them can't get away from their own pressupositions.

Like I said, that's a rationalistic approach to philosophy. It's not true that one must agree with you on that point.

And of course you have to use reason to validate your point to prove that "one doesn't have to prove human reason valid in some rationalistic fashion." are you trying to be rationally inconsistent here?

I'm being totally consistent. I don't have to prove the validity of reason before I can reason. So, there's nothing to prevent me from making such a statement and being consistent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Something like the law of non-contradiction can only happen in a universe where physical laws don't spontaneously change?

Even if physical laws were to spontaneously change, the law of non-contradiction would still hold true. It says that A cannot be not-A at the same time and in the same respect.

As I see it, contradictions can't exist in reality simply because that is an implication of reality itself. Reality is what it is and is not what it is not (at the same time and in the same respect). It simply can't be otherwise, or else we aren't talking about reality.

So, logic is simply a method by which the human faculty for abstract thought is kept cognitively in harmony with reality. Which is to say that logic is the art of avoiding contradictions in one's reasoning processes as one contemplates reality and draws conclusions.

So, reality does not obey logic. Rather, logic follows reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

Yes, I dispute that part. I think the stuff you posted in the big paragraph in #104 is completely false and fictitious.

Now you are the one making claims.

If you want me to believe otherwise, provide reliable evidence to back up your claims.

(An intelligent person such as yourself certainly understands the concept of burden of proof: that since you're the one accusing Mother Teresa of horrible crimes, you have to provide the reliable evidence that it's true.

I'm not too smart, but I see when someone is attempting to box me in to defending claims that I did not make. I would have to say that what you are attempting is intellectually dishonest.

Similarly, if someone on the internet were to accuse you of eating babies, you wouldn't feel any need to provide evidence that the claim was false, but would just point out the lack of evidence that it's true. However, if one wanted evidence that Mother Teresa and her network of hospitals and hospices gave good care, such evidence is plentiful and easy to find. First of all there are the numerous prizes she was awarded by numerous sources including the Nobel Peace Prize. Those who award such prizes, such as the Nobel Committee, would not have given them to a person who treated the poor in the way that you claim Mother Teresa did. Second, there are ample works written by people who actually witnessed Mother Teresa's mission in Calcutta, such as Mother Teresa by Leo Maasburg, Mother Teresa: A Complete Authorized Autobiography by Kathryn Spink, and In Mother Teresa's House: A Hospice Nurse in the Slums of Calcutta, by Rosemary Dew.)

I scanned through those books on Google Books, and what I said - that MT had a predilection for suffering - is not contradicted there. To quote from Spink's book, p 143:

"Fundamental to any understanding of the link for Sick and Suffering Co-Workers was an appreciation of the fact that it did not mean a desperate craving after healing but rather the constructive use of suffering. To Mother Teresa suffering was an essential part of the Christian way."

Mother Teresa: An Authorized Biography - Kathryn Spink - Google Books

As for the rest of your comments, you are tilting at windmills. I never disputed the missionary work that she did.

I ask again, please provide your own opinion of MT's stance on pain medication and modern medicine, with citations.

vThis thread was started to give Christians to opportunity to ask questions of an atheist--though the thread's starter seems to have scuttled off--so I do wonder why, when a woman devotes herself to helping the poorest people on earth, some atheists respond by slandering her with the most horrible lies that they can imagine. It seems a rather strange thing to do.

Even stranger is how you edit out of my post the on-topic comments directed at you.

You say that you do not believe everything you read. With its lack of citations and evidentiary support, do you believe what you read in the bible?

And what of the billions of dollars go into an industry that appears to be unable to substantiate its most basic core claims, such as the existence of deities, the afterlife, heaven, etc. Anyone?

 

[drjean]

Except that's not what people were doing, people were clarifying that there is more than one type of atheism, which those in opposition in the thread are still trying to crowbar every atheist into.



"So many" atheists consider their view a religion? Unlikely. Citation needed.

If one were truly searching for truth, he could find it easily on the internet. Of course, it depends upon exactly what answers you wish to find that guides how you phrase your search question. Looking for the groups of atheists who do hold that atheism is indeed a religion is not difficult. Finding them is even easier. My telling others that they exist and that in the truest form of the definition of religion, atheism falls lock step in line, won't change anyone's ideas. If you wish to change or learn info that might help you change if you find you are in error, then seek them out on your own. I'm not here to educate; I am merely presenting what I know to be true in a thread that asked my thoughts. Be well.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If you present what you know to be true, you should be able to provide citations.

"That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

 

[drjean]

I could. You can find them on your own as well. Since the thread is not one where I'm trying to debate my position, but merely stating my thoughts, I will allow you the option of the latter effort. I do not have to defend all my thoughts.

 

[Mling]

If one were truly searching for truth, he could find it easily on the internet. Of course, it depends upon exactly what answers you wish to find that guides how you phrase your search question. Looking for the groups of atheists who do hold that atheism is indeed a religion is not difficult. Finding them is even easier. My telling others that they exist and that in the truest form of the definition of religion, atheism falls lock step in line, won't change anyone's ideas. If you wish to change or learn info that might help you change if you find you are in error, then seek them out on your own. I'm not here to educate; I am merely presenting what I know to be true in a thread that asked my thoughts. Be well.

How are you defining religion?

 

[Gadarene]

I do not have to defend all my thoughts.

Which means we don't have to take them seriously.

 

[AlexBP]

Now you are the one making claims. I'm not too smart, but I see when someone is attempting to box me in to defending claims that I did not make. I would have to say that what you are attempting is intellectually dishonest.

You made very specific claims about Mother Teresa. In post #104, you claimed that Mother Teresa denied painkillers to patients who needed them, which would be a serious crime if it were true. You also claimed that certain words were direct quotes from Mother Teresa. I'm still waiting for you to provide reliable evidence to back up these claims. (I assume we both agree that many thing posted on the internet are false, and thus a personal webpage with no references does not constitute reliable evidence.) Do you have reliable evidence to back up your claim that Mother Teresa did what you said that she did and said what you said that she said?