Atheism. What are your thoughts?

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes atheism is untenable. It's obviously is.

Christianity is untenable. It obviously is.

Your turn...

 

[ACWaller]

Esqueese Me. I has questions...

What does tenable mean?

How do you ten somthing?

How does one know if something can be tenned?

 

[Nanopants]

Well I am impressed with the thread. I think this is the first time in about 6 years of hanging out on these forums that I've encountered an invitation to critique atheism, by an atheist.

Anyhow, I don't have any qualitative criticisms against atheism, or any other worldview for that matter. I was formerly an agnostic but I don't consider my belief system to have been much of a choice. Agnosticism/atheism was just the best-fit description of my life experience in those days, just as Christianity is now.

That being said I'd rather critique the idea that we can shop around for worldviews as if one has more value than another. Certainly effort to improve the way we think is beneficial, but I can't imagine that any attempt at a self-administered paradigm replacement could be very healthy at all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Esqueese Me. I has questions...

What does tenable mean?

How do you ten somthing?

How does one know if something can be tenned?

If something is 'tenable', that means it can be maintained and justified and supported and verified. The theory of evolution is tenable, as evidence continues to pour in. By contrast, 'untenable' means it can't be justified or supported.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Anyhow, I don't have any qualitative criticisms against atheism, or any other worldview for that matter. I was formerly an agnostic but I don't consider my belief system to have been much of a choice. Agnosticism/atheism was just the best-fit description of my life experience in those days, just as Christianity is now.

That being said I'd rather critique the idea that we can shop around for worldviews as if one has more value than another. Certainly effort to improve the way we think is beneficial, but I can't imagine that any attempt at a self-administered paradigm replacement could be very healthy at all.

Isn't that the whole rhyme and reason for Christian missionaries?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would love to highlights those points that I like to answer but still figuring out how...so bear with me. I'll just lump the ones that seem related and answer them accordingly. You mentioned atheists don't restrict themselves to what they can invoke. Of course you are the same one that says atheism isn't a religion and not an organized group right? Yet you are here representing what "atheists" collectively do think, telling me what is and what is not in atheism? Which is which really?

I maintain that both are compatible. Atheism isn't a self-contained group like Christianity or Islam, it's a descriptor for those who don't follow any such religion (or, more accurately, who don't believe in God). This definition means that they aren't a coherent group in and of themselves, but nonetheless we can still say something about them.

For instance, you claimed that naturalism is the bedrock of atheist philosophy, while I claim it isn't. I claim that, from the definition alone, all we can say about atheists is that they don't believe in God. Anything else goes - they can, if they so wish, invoke 'God' as an explanation, they're not barred from doing so, they just haven't done it yet. Etc.

This all demonstrably follows from the definition of atheism. I haven't attached any bells or whistles to it. Notice I actually haven't said what atheists think or do, only what they can think or do, as implied by the definition.

There's many self proclaim atheist who never articulate their position like you do, those average atheists who normally invoke science and naturalism against people of faith. So do they have to sign up to your school of thought to be certified? You have a big job telling these illegitimates that they missing a lot. I'm sure many of them would be surprise to find out that there's a statement of beliefs atheist made for themselves. For what I can see you definitely has a belief system structured like any organization. A belief system that seemingly teach liberty of ideas within. That's quite a worldview.

I have no idea where you got any of that. Let's go over exactly what I've stated about atheism and atheists:

1. "[A]theists ... [are] quite happy to invoke God, if need be, but they just don't see the need to"
   This doesn't state any belief or requirement that atheists must follow. It simply points out that there's nothing to stop an atheist using the 'God did it' explanation, but that, by the definition of atheism, an atheist hasn't - if he had, he wouldn't be an atheist.
2. "Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, no more, no less."
   Again, this doesn't state any belief or requirement that atheists must follow.
3. "[A]theism doesn't require the rejection of the supernatural."
   Again, this doesn't state any belief or requirement that atheists must follow. Atheism, by definition, refers to those people who reject a belief in deities. That definition says nothing about rejecting all things supernatural. The rest of my paragraph expounds on that.
4. "1) Atheism isn't a religion or organised group."
   This follows from the definition: it's those who don't believe in God, not a self-contained religion.
5. "1a) Most atheists aren't bothered about proving the philosophical foundations of logic and reason - and neither are most Christians. That doesn't undermine the central premise (or lack thereof)."
   This is a statistical point: the majority of atheists aren't debtors, and couldn't care less about demonstrating the philosophical source of this or that. Again, this doesn't state any belief or requirement that atheists must follow.
6. "2) Atheism doesn't seek to "prove reality through the lens of naturalism"."
   Again, this doesn't state any belief or requirement that atheists must follow, it points out that atheism, in and of itself, isn't a belief system with requirements or goals to prove this or that.
7. "2a) Atheism doesn't presume naturalism."
   A reiteration of point #3.
8. "2b) Atheism doesn't require a proof of reality - "I don't know" is sufficient, albeit unsatisfactory, and indeed is often the most logical stance to take."
   A mix of #6 and #7, and a note on epistemology. Ultimately, if an atheist doesn't know the root origin of the laws of logic, that doesn't change anything.

So those are the eight things I said about atheism, some of them interrelated. Can you point to any of them which corroborates your claims? Namely, that:

• I've created a school of thought,
• Atheists who don't ascribe to my worldview are 'illegitimate' atheists,
• Atheists (I?) have a statement of beliefs,
• Atheists have a structure belief system,
• Atheism is a belief system which teaches "liberty of ideas within".

That's quite a set of claims you've levelled against me, but can you actually justify any of them? Can you point to any of my posts where I've said anything other than, "Athiesm means [this], which implies [this]"? Can you show where I've attached anything more than is deducible from the definition?

This statement is either true or false. But you have to prove why it is so. It's a non answer

It's an answer to your previous question. To demonstrate it, I simply need to point out that your position doesn't provide any more a robust or solid backing for logic and reason than anything else. I'd be happy if you could prove me wrong.

"Because they are statements whose truth is known, and from whom we can deduce... well, everything deducible. They don't exist, in any useful meaning of the word - rather, it is more descriptive to say they are 'true'. They don't 'exist' any more than a unicorn exists."

Of course they do exist. Logical absolutes exist whether somebody believes them or not. Unless of course if you think 'existence' is under empirical means again then you have to define what the word "existence" really is

To exist is to be in reality. A star exists because it's physically there, dangling in space. Odin, as far as we can tell, doesn't exist. Magnetic monopoles, as far as we can tell, don't exist. Existence applies to entities which have a real prescence, those things which simply are. A statement doesn't exist or not exist - it's true or false. That's all the term has ever meant, from the loosest of colloquial parlance, to the most rigid philosophical or mathematical jargon. To exist is to be, and the laws of logic aren't.

That all said, this line of inquiry is just a semantic quibble that won't get us anywhere.

I'm not trying to compare the universe with the laws of logic. I'm pointing out that in a chance universe who says we can't be contradictory or that 1 plus 1 should equal 5? If you believe in the objective nature of laws of logic and the same time don't think it has an ultimate source why not violate it?

Because it makes no sense to. 1 + 1 = 2 for hard, mathematical reasons. These reasons don't depend on anything in the universe, so they don't change when you go to different parts of the universe.

Besides, when did I say it doesn't have an ultimate source?

Yes atheism is untenable. It's obviously is. If you don't know how to explain the laws of logic then don't use it to disprove anything. Why use something that you can't explain and don't know? If you don't need to explain the very foundation of what you are trying to prove then you have no case at all let alone engage in logical discourse. This version of atheism looks like its built upon dodging question and explaining the unexplainable.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. When I use the word 'if', I mean 'if'. My point is that, if a given atheist doesn't have a concrete foundation for logic, that doesn't make atheism untenable. I didn't say this was the case, only that it wouldn't matter if it was.

 

[AtheistAlan]

Yes atheism is untenable. It's obviously is. If you don't know how to explain the laws of logic then don't use it to disprove anything. Why use something that you can't explain and don't know? If you don't need to explain the very foundation of what you are trying to prove then you have no case at all let alone engage in logical discourse. This version of atheism looks like its built upon dodging question and explaining the unexplainable. Theists should start thinking then whether to take atheism seriously. Afterall the information coming off from an atheists may be nothing more like chemicals shaking like coke in a can. it doesnt mean a thing. Although it might be called truth by themselves whatever that is

Lets use some logic:

Can an omnipotent God create a rock that he/she cannot lift?

Can we agree that there is evil in the world?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

Now explain to me again how we cannot logically defend our position?

-Atheist Alan

 

[Nanopants]

Isn't that the whole rhyme and reason for Christian missionaries?

What sort of missionaries?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What sort of missionaries?

Those who go to other places and attempt to convert the people there to their faith.

 

[DaneaFL]

I remember hearing Neil Degrasse Tyson comment on atheism by using an analogy...

He said he didn't like using labels like "atheist" because even though he doesn't play golf, he doesn't call himself an "agolfist" and go to conventions were fellow agolfists talk about how they don't play golf.

But his analogy is flawed because 90% of the world doesn't think that golf is the one true sport and that we should all go to hell if we don't play golf... If that were the case, I would definitely call myself an "agolfist"

The problem with being labeled an atheist is that people who don't know any better will automatically think they know everything about you and associate you with everything else ever related to atheism...

Calling atheism a religion is partly a deceptive word game to try to marginalize the concept and it's partly just ignorance of the concept by people who can't imagine someone NOT having a religion...

Unfortunately, I think most people KNOW that atheism isn't a religion but they say it is anyway to try to deceptively put atheism on the same field as religions in order to discredit it.

Next time someone says to you that atheism is a religion just ask them if they believe in big foot. When they say no, continue to call them an "Abigfootist" the rest of the conversation and ask then to explain to you why abigfootism is the correct religion in their opinion.

 

[Nanopants]

Those who go to other places and attempt to convert the people there to their faith.

I don't know. There are thousands of Christian denominations so there are too many differing practices to make a blanket statement about missionaries.

As for the way it was probably taught in early Christianity (according to the epistles of Paul), Christianity wasn't to be merely preached: if the message isn't validated by real events, it isn't valid.

 

[Buy Bologna]

I remember hearing Neil Degrasse Tyson comment on atheism by using an analogy...

He said he didn't like using labels like "atheist" because even though he doesn't play golf, he doesn't call himself an "agolfist" and go to conventions were fellow agolfists talk about how they don't play golf.

But his analogy is flawed because 90% of the world doesn't think that golf is the one true sport and that we should all go to hell if we don't play golf... If that were the case, I would definitely call myself an "agolfist"

The problem with being labeled an atheist is that people who don't know any better will automatically think they know everything about you and associate you with everything else ever related to atheism...

Calling atheism a religion is partly a deceptive word game to try to marginalize the concept and it's partly just ignorance of the concept by people who can't imagine someone NOT having a religion...

Unfortunately, I think most people KNOW that atheism isn't a religion but they say it is anyway to try to deceptively put atheism on the same field as religions in order to discredit it.

Next time someone says to you that atheism is a religion just ask them if they believe in big foot. When they say no, continue to call them an "Abigfootist" the rest of the conversation and ask then to explain to you why abigfootism is the correct religion in their opinion.

Yes I just seen this.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic? - YouTube

 

[KCfromNC]

Indeed, claiming that God inspires logic as an apologetic is a bit of an epic fail given that apologetics are attempts at logically defending the god-concept....

Not to mention that the same believers will resort to "God is a mystery" when they can't answer a question - which is hardly a sound basis for a consistent, coherent universe.

 

[AlexBP]

I did make *a* claim, which I substantiated above, using a book *you* offered as reference. I see that you edited that out of your response. Do you concede that point or not?

Let's be clear about what you said and what Spink's book says. You said that Mother Teresa had a "predilection for human suffering that might be difficult to assign to secular motives". (post #91) Spink's book documents that Mother Teresa did a great deal of good as far as providing medicine, treatment, and decent conditions for countless poor people who otherwise wouldn't have gotten them, as well as food, education, and so forth. We've agreed on this. Hence Mother Teresa alleviated human suffering whenever possible. (No comment on whether this would be "difficult to assign to secular motives".)

The section of Spink's book that you link to mentions the different organization that Mother Teresa founded in India. There were several branches, including the Sick and Suffering Co-Workers. This organization was for those who wished to contribute to the charity effort but were too sick for physical work. Mother Teresa and her organization provided them the best life they could, and helped them to pray and find meaning in their situation. The quotes about Mother Teresa being grateful for suffering come from this effort, and they were attempts to assist the understanding of very sick people who couldn't be cured. Once the facts are placed in this context, we get a quite different picture than the vague accusation that she "had a predilection for human suffering".

You are mistaken. I linked to a web page and quoted some text from it, as indicated from the quote marks and italicization of the text. That was not a claim.

Interestingly, you will find that the story on that linked web page is substantiated on page 144 of Spink's book.

In a debate, if I ask for evidence of something, and you respond by linking to a webpage and quoting from it, it seems reasonable to interpret that as a claim that what you're quoting is true. But if you're willing to acknowledge that not everything which you quoted is backed up by evidence, I'll not push the issue any further. Now we've found that, according to Spink's book, one bit of dialogue from that webpage is validated, so I agree that is true. On the other hand, the far more serious and much nastier claim that Mother Teresa denied painkillers to patients who needed them is not backed up by Spink's book, and since you've not been able to post any evidence backing that up, perhaps we can just agree that that statement is unsupported. (The question of why the atheist who wrote that webpage would tell such a nasty lie will then be dropped.)

 

[AlexBP]

The amputee analogy was an attempt to state something that can't happen naturally. Give me any supernatural even then, and then prove it exists. Prove that supernatural forces are behind it.

Give me a better example, and let's try it from that standpoint.

First of all, I apologize for jumping the gun on assuming that you'd left the thread.

"Natural" and "supernatural" are slippery words. How does one precisely define what's natural and what's supernatural? Jesus healed a paralyzed man and that man immediately got up and walked away; most people call that a story of the supernatural. On the other hand, there have been plenty of cases in modern times where paralyzed people spontaneously recovered, so are all such cases supernatural, or are they natural. If a person has been paralyzed for years, their muscles will be shrunken and deformed, and it will take months or years of therapy before they can even walk. Yet there have been cases of claimed miracles, such as that of Rita Klaus, wherein a person healed from paralysis was restored to perfect health in minutes. Klaus was also blind, had her ligaments cut, had some of her bones removed or warped, yet all the deformities vanished overnight. Was this supernatural? I've already recommended one book about research into miraculous healing. Another one is Randy Sullivan's The Miracle Detective. Both of them include the evidence for Klaus' case.

If we were to expand the discussion beyond miraculous healing of medical issues, there are plenty of other events that call out for explanation. Jakob Lorber was a teacher in Austria in the mid-19th century who, at one point, heard a voice talking to him, claiming to be the voice of Jesus Christ. The voice told Lorber to write down what it said, and Lorber did so for the next 24 years, producing thousands of pages of material. Among other things, the resulting work contains a great deal of scientific findings which were unknown in Lorber's lifetime, but which are now known to be true. I can't see any explanation for such a phenomenon that doesn't involve the supernatural.

 

[Davian]

I think it is intellectually dishonest of you to remove text from my posts, taking out the context, so as to change the intent. Where do you get your morals from?

Let's be clear about what you said and what Spink's book says. You said that Mother Teresa had a "predilection for human suffering that might be difficult to assign to secular motives". (post #91) Spink's book documents that Mother Teresa did a great deal of good as far as providing medicine, treatment, and decent conditions for countless poor people who otherwise wouldn't have gotten them, as well as food, education, and so forth. We've agreed on this.

I did not agree. I just said that I was aware of the other things her organization did, as part of its missionary work. As for the claim of "a great deal of good as far as providing medicine, treatment, and decent conditions" you will need to provide support for that claim. That was not the impression that I got from what I read of Spink's book.

Hence Mother Teresa alleviated human suffering whenever possible. (No comment on whether this would be "difficult to assign to secular motives".)

Support your claim of "whenever possible" - particularly on the subject of painkillers.

The section of Spink's book that you link to mentions the different organization that Mother Teresa founded in India. There were several branches, including the Sick and Suffering Co-Workers. This organization was for those who wished to contribute to the charity effort but were too sick for physical work. Mother Teresa and her organization provided them the best life they could, and helped them to pray and find meaning in their situation. The quotes about Mother Teresa being grateful for suffering come from this effort, and they were attempts to assist the understanding of very sick people who couldn't be cured. Once the facts are placed in this context, we get a quite different picture than the vague accusation that she "had a predilection for human suffering".

Quoting MT from Spink's Book: "Suffering in itself is nothing; but suffering shared with Christ's passion is a wonderful gift. Man's most beautiful gift is that he can share in the passion of Christ" " Suffering, if it is accepted together, borne together, is a joy"

So we have a 'wonderful gift, 'joy', and 'Christ' - as I said, not very secular.

Tell me, have you actually read this book, or much about MT?

In a debate, if I ask for evidence of something, and you respond by linking to a webpage and quoting from it, it seems reasonable to interpret that as a claim that what you're quoting is true. But if you're willing to acknowledge that not everything which you quoted is backed up by evidence, I'll not push the issue any further.

You are mistaken; the text I quoted was not in response for a request for evidence. I believe you are using it as a 'red herring'.

And you are mistaken if you think the statements are without support.

Now we've found that, according to Spink's book, one bit of dialogue from that webpage is validated, so I agree that is true. On the other hand, the far more serious and much nastier claim that Mother Teresa denied painkillers to patients who needed them is not backed up by Spink's book, and since you've not been able to post any evidence backing that up, perhaps we can just agree that that statement is unsupported. (The question of why the atheist who wrote that webpage would tell such a nasty lie will then be dropped.)

There are other books that comment on how MT limited/withheld painkillers, showing that you are incorrect that the statement is unsupported.:

"'In her home for the dying, no medication or painkillers are allowed even to terminally ill patients.'"
Christianity in a different Light : Face behind the Mask By Maanoj Rakhit
Christianity in a different Light : Face behind the Mask - Maanoj Rakhit - Google Books


"They are not given a great deal of medical care. They're not being given painkillers really beyond aspirin and maybe if you're lucky some Brufen or something, for the sort of pain that goes with terminal cancer and the things they were dying of..."
The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice
By Christopher Hitchens
The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice - Christopher Hitchens - Google Books



"It accepts that very few can follow the path of Mother Teresa of Calcutta and limit the dose of painkillers so as to unite themselves with the sufferings of Christ, but it also says that 'suffering has a special place in God's plan of salvation."
Religious Ethics for As and A2
By Jill Oliphant, Jon Mayled
Religious Ethics for As and A2 - Jill Oliphant, Jon Mayled - Google Books


Perhaps you could shed light on this subject with your own opinion of MT's stance on pain medication and modern medicine. Unless you are unhappy with your findings, of course.

If you are to respond, provide some support for your claims, and please refrain from editing text from my post.

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

First, I would like to be very clear. I'm not here to promote atheism. I am not here to answer questions about atheism, as that is clearly not allowed on these forums.

I had an entire thread deleted because I wanted to answer any questions about atheism, respectively, so that I can show that we are good, normal people like everyone else. I wanted to inform and educate about what, exactly, we are or are not. That is clearly not allowed. I was respectful the entire time. I even appealed, but I was denied that request. The reason given is that they do not allow "Ask a ___" for non-Christians. I did not post in a Christian only sub-forum category.

I am here to hear any conceptions you may have about atheism. I will then attempt to either confirm, correct, elaborate, or debate.

I am here to engage in stimulating conversation. I kindly request that everyone be respectful at all times. I thank everyone for their time and comments.

-Atheist Alan

Most atheists I know are quite angry people who seem to live their lives in reaction to a bad experience they had with Christians or the church.

I'm not sure how anyone can be so confident that there is no God. Wouldn't you have to be God to know that. There is no evidence for there being 'no God' but plenty of evidence for there being a God!

Nature is a perfect example. That fact most of us (if we are not psychopaths) have a conscience is another.

To believe there is no God, means believing that the universe came from nothing, that humans evolved from rocks and that species changed from one to another via mutation, when mutation has never improved a species... ever!

That takes a lot of faith. I must take my hat off to the atheists for their enormous faith in quite unbelievable ideas.

 

[quatona]

Most atheists I know are quite angry people who seem to live their lives in reaction to a bad experience they had with Christians or the church.

I'm not sure how anyone can be so confident that there is no God. Wouldn't you have to be God to know that. There is no evidence for there being 'no God' but plenty of evidence for there being a God!

Nature is a perfect example. That fact most of us (if we are not psychopaths) have a conscience is another.

To believe there is no God, means believing that the universe came from nothing, that humans evolved from rocks and that species changed from one to another via mutation, when mutation has never improved a species... ever!

That takes a lot of faith. I must take my hat off to the atheists for their enormous faith in quite unbelievable ideas.

I´m not surprised that you, Sir, receive a lot of angry feedback from atheist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Most atheists I know are quite angry people who seem to live their lives in reaction to a bad experience they had with Christians or the church.

Most atheists I know are so because they see no reason to believe in deities, and none of them are particularily angry at religion - except when its adherants blow up buildings, its child-raping priests are cloistered away by the hierarchy, children's minds are polluted with its nonsense hidden in the guise of 'science', and human liberty and freedom is stifled in its name. That, is when we get angry.

I'm not sure how anyone can be so confident that there is no God. Wouldn't you have to be God to know that. There is no evidence for there being 'no God' but plenty of evidence for there being a God!

I disagree. First, the vast majority of atheists don't say "There is no God", only "I don't believe there is a God" - two very different statements. Second, you don't have to be God to know there isn't a God; we know, to scientific standards of proof, that there is no such deity as, say, Odin or Thor. Third, it's disputed whether there is any evidence for a deity at all.

Nature is a perfect example. That fact most of us (if we are not psychopaths) have a conscience is another.

How do either of those point to a deity? Both can be explained without a god, so therefore to invoke a god is unnecessary - it's still possible, but there's no reason to do so.

To believe there is no God, means believing that the universe came from nothing, that humans evolved from rocks and that species changed from one to another via mutation, when mutation has never improved a species... ever!

You are demonstrably wrong. E. coli has shown to mutate a brand new ability over approximately 40,000 generations (about two decades): it can ingest citric acid and utilise it directly, instead of the usual method of synthesising it itself. We have seen bacteria evolve the ability to eat the by-products of nylon - by-products which never existed until we humans started making them in early twentieth century. We have seen bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, one of the most direct and obvious improvements a bacterium could inherit.

That takes a lot of faith. I must take my hat off to the atheists for their enormous faith in quite unbelievable ideas.

I do enjoy Christians who use 'faith' like it's a dirty word, and then in the same breath say that their religion requires faith to get around the hard parts.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I´m not surprised that you, Sir, receive a lot of angry feedback from atheist.