Atheism

[stiggywiggy]

No, not so fast! Let's get back to the fairies. Fairies are not defined as creatures that can be observed empirically. So if I claim fairies exist and that they transend the empirical, are you going to do as you ask us to do and remain agnostic about their existence?

Ken

Does REASON have a place here? I know of no one who ever claims to have experienced a transcendent fairy, yet I know that there are millions who claim to have experienced a transcendent Holy Spirit. Should my lack of metaphysical certitude about this, lead me to give equal weight to both testimonies, i.e. ZERO, since I cannot empirically verify those testimonies?

I would be a fool to do so. And yet dawkins-style atheists seem to say that they have the same absolute certitude about the non-existence of God as they do about the non-existence of three-headed purple unicorns.

 

[juvenissun]

It could be if he regarded a spirit/ghost as a god, which would presumably involve the view that this ghost was incredibly powerful and had some signficant role in creating, shaping, or ordering either the universe or human destinies.

I can't think of any reason why someone who believes in ghosts must view ghosts as gods. It's not a requirement. And the moment an atheist did view ghosts as gods, then he would cease to be an atheist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That is what I mean. I think when an atheist starts to accept the existence of ghost, six-sense, spirit type of thing, then he is not an atheist any more.

So to me, atheism is the same as materialism.

 

[stiggywiggy]

One can't prove it either. Which leaves the atheist....where? Right where he started. But how can you disbelieve in Zeus if you can't prove he doesn't exist? You have to be agnostic, like you said.

I have never met anyone who claims to have experienced the reality of Zeus. And yet we have both met hundreds who claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ. Should both testimonies be given equal weight, i.e. ZERO, when contemplating the POSSIBILITY that there might be a realm that transcends the empirical?

 

[juvenissun]

Consider it a practical choice.

Is it possible there is a realm of things that we cannot detect and do not interact with us in a detectable way? Sure, But its really no different from that realm not existing if we cannot detect it and it has no effects on our realm.

So we're free to act as though that realm isnt there untill it does something, anything, that has an effect in this realm. Because we'd be able to detect that effect, or perhaps even something from that realm.

Think for example of germs before we had the microscopes, one might think that they were undetectable and certainly it is true that we had no way to detect the germs themselfs. But we had no problem detecting the effects they had on people, something was making people sick, something was causing babies to die if handled by a doctor who was disecting a corpse moments before. So it was clear there was something there, weither that something be demons, spirits, nocebo effect, or miniscule little orgamisms.

You can hold exactly the same attitude toward any spiritual beings, includes God. So, if an atheist believed in ghost and expected that science would discover some concrete evidences of ghost "in the future", then why wouldn't the atheist also believe in God?

 

[hollyda]

I have never met anyone who claims to have experienced the reality of Zeus. And yet we have both met hundreds who claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ. Should both testimonies be given equal weight, i.e. ZERO, when contemplating the POSSIBILITY that there might be a realm that transcends the empirical?

What about all those who experience the "reality" of religions outside Christianity? Do you choose to ignore those? Or is there some loophole that disqualifies them from meeting your standards?

 

[stiggywiggy]

You are probably of the mistaken view that to be an atheist one must have absolute knowledge and certainty that gods don't exist. They don't need that. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. That's it.



Why precisely is someone obligated to prove empirically that a non-empirical realm doesn't exist? It's a senseless request (literally).

Exactly. It is senseless because it cannot be done. And one is only "obligated" to do so, if he expects anyone to take his disbelief seriously when appealing to lack of empirical verification, as Dawkins does.

So Dawkins is obligated, but he can't pull it off.

 

[hollyda]

You can hold exactly the same attitude toward any spiritual beings, includes God. So, if an atheist believed in ghost and expect that science would discover some concrete evidences of ghost "in the future", then why wouldn't the atheist also believe in God?

That's a good question...and likewise the reason I stopped believing in the authenticity of ghost stories when I became an atheist. I'm not closed to the possibility, and would love to be proven wrong, but I don't believe in ghosts.

That's not to say someone can't have a paranormal experience. In fact, the experience can seem very "para" and real to the person involved, but having listened to more than one Joe Nickel discussion, I remain unconvinced there isn't a very normal explanation for those things that seem extra-para.

For those skeptics/non-believers who do believe in ghosts, you'd have to ask them directly to explain their motives. I'd be interested in the answer.

 

[Cabal]

What about all those who experience the "reality" of religions outside Christianity? Do you choose to ignore those? Or is there some loophole that disqualifies them from meeting your standards?

I suspect a difference is being drawn between religions currently practised and no-longer practised religions. Can't say I necessarily agree with the point though - greek polytheism was contemporaneous with Christianity at one point, and I can't say that something becomes "less true" as its number of adherents decline.

 

[hollyda]

I suspect a difference is being drawn between religions currently practised and no-longer practised religions. Can't say I necessarily agree with the point though - greek polytheism was contemporaneous with Christianity at one point, and I can't say that something becomes "less true" as its number of adherents decline.

I listened to Dan Barker once discuss speaking in tongues. He said when he was an evangelical, he'd experience a euphoric rush while speaking in tongues that triggered some sort of pleasure sensor as a religious experience.

In fact, I was moved to dig up a quote.

On the reality of spiritual experiences

"But my personal religious experience of knowing and loving God is so special," believers will often say, "that I feel sorry for you atheists who have nothing like that." Oh, really? I play jazz piano.

...Suppose I were to say, "Oh, you poor non-jazz musicians; you don't know what you are missing. I can't describe it to you, and even if you listen to us you are not going to understand what is happening in our minds. It's very real and you'll just have to take our word for it."

You would understand that I am talking about something that is happening to me, not to you, and the fact that you lack my inner experience is no threat to your own self-worth or worldview. What if I were to say that the only way you can have true meaning in your life is if you practice piano for four hours a day for 20 years and learn to play jazz, like I did? You would think I was joking, or seriously deluded.

I do not deny that spiritual experiences are real. They happen all over the world, in most religions. I deny that they point to anything outside of the mind. I had many religious experiences, and I can still have them if I want. As an atheist I can still speak in tongues and "feel the presence of God."

...I know some atheists who pooh-pooh religious experiences, thinking they are all made up, purely psychological tricks of an unsophisticated mind. But they are wrong. Religious experiences are very real. I had them as a believer, and I can duplicate them as a nonbeliever.

Most of us have had convincing dreams. Suppose you had a horrible nightmare that a bogeyman was crawling in your bedroom window. You sit up screaming, waking up the rest of the house. Your hands are sweating and your heart is pounding and your breath is shallow. No one would deny that you just had a very real experience. That nightmare was a powerful moment, with physical consequences. Based on your behavior alone, we would conclude that something happened to you.

But there is no bogeyman crawling through the window. Once you realize it is a dream, you can relax and go back to sleep. That's how it is with me. I have realized that these religious experiences that I had, and can still duplicate if I should desire, are all in the mind. Of course, why would I want a phony religious experience -- especially the nightmare of hell? -- when I can have something more beautiful playing the piano?

 

[stiggywiggy]

What about all those who experience the "reality" of religions outside Christianity? Do you choose to ignore those?

No, that would be foolish. To IGNORE the testimonies of millions about anything is just downright idiotic, in fact.

 

[hollyda]

No, that would be foolish. To IGNORE the testimonies of millions about anything is just downright idiotic, in fact.

Even if someone else's testimony conflicts with yours? Does that make it less trustworthy?

I can give you a testimony about my departure from the church, and I'm hardly the only atheist who was once a Christian.

 

[Cabal]

I listened to Dan Barker once discuss speaking in tongues. He said when he was an evangelical, he'd experience a euphoric rush while speaking in tongues that triggered some sort of pleasure sensor as a religious experience.

In fact, I was moved to dig up a quote.

I wasn't really getting at the nature of religious experience myself, more addressing the idea that making points about non-belief in religions no longer widely adhered to is not necessarily irrelevant in a discussion on non-belief.

But interesting quote nonetheless. I wouldn't say religious experiences they aren't real experience - they are certainly perceived, but they are not necessarily always handled consistently compared to other unusual experiences. In every other case a local physiological sensation/experience would be attributed to a local physiological cause as an initial explanation, but attributing it to a transcendent deity tickling your brain is just leaping light-years off to the conclusion you already wanted.

Quite interesting that the person could reproduce things like tongues though, most interesting indeed. I wonder if it's somewhat of an indictment of Christianity that it is so easy to outwardly fake the characteristics of a believer.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Even if someone else's testimony conflicts with yours? Does that make it less trustworthy?

I can give you a testimony about my departure from the church, and I'm hardly the only atheist who was once a Christian.

That's irrelevant. What you CANNOT do is is give testimony about your experience within a realm that transcends the empirical. Millions and millions do. You do not.

You may believe these people are deceived but you are unable to prove it.

 

[Cabal]

Even if someone else's testimony conflicts with yours? Does that make it less trustworthy?

I can give you a testimony about my departure from the church, and I'm hardly the only atheist who was once a Christian.

I think also that some itt are operating under a misapprehension that we just ignore testimony. I don't, for one. The difference is I opened my eyes and saw that testimonies had similar characteristics and claims and levels of supporting evidence regardless of which religion they occurred under. Such commonality means they simply cannot be used to determine the validity of a religion. It's like saying that a true religion contains people who have skin. It is completely useless for telling you anything about the religion because it's true for all of them, so it cannot be proof of the validity of any of them.

So testimony is not ignored, far from it.

 

[hollyda]

I wasn't really getting at the nature of religious experience myself, more addressing the idea that making points about non-belief in religions no longer widely adhered to is not necessarily irrelevant in a discussion on non-belief.

But interesting quote nonetheless. I wouldn't say religious experiences they aren't real experience - they are certainly perceived, but they are not necessarily always handled consistently compared to other unusual experiences. In every other case a local physiological sensation/experience would be attributed to a local physiological cause as an initial explanation, but attributing it to a transcendent deity tickling your brain is just leaping light-years off to the conclusion you already wanted.

Quite interesting that the person could reproduce things like tongues though, most interesting indeed. I wonder if it's somewhat of an indictment of Christianity that it is so easy to outwardly fake the characteristics of a believer.

I understood what you meant; my response was a sloppy transition from "dead religions" to people who have moved on from contemporary religions. How the experience a practitioner of a dead religion might have had relates to that of, well, Dan Barker, or others like him. If that sentiment could be reproduced, even without the conviction of the belief.

I think what Barker was saying was not necessarily an indictment of Christianity, more that those who say they have had religious experiences aren't necessarily deceived in what they experienced, but classifying it as something singular to a belief when indeed anyone can experience it and classify it as something else.

 

[hollyda]

That's irrelevant. What you CANNOT do is is give testimony about your experience within a realm that transcends the empirical. Millions and millions do. You do not.

You may believe these people are deceived but you are unable to prove it.

And you are unable to prove they are not. So we're back at the beginning. I don't claim there is no god. I just don't believe it. You can't prove there is a god, but you believe there is.

 

[hollyda]

I think also that some itt are operating under a misapprehension that we just ignore testimony. I don't, for one. The difference is I opened my eyes and saw that testimonies had similar characteristics and claims and levels of supporting evidence regardless of which religion they occurred under. Such commonality means they simply cannot be used to determine the validity of a religion. It's like saying that a true religion contains people who have skin. It is completely useless for telling you anything about the religion because it's true for all of them, so it cannot be proof of the validity of any of them.

So testimony is not ignored, far from it.

Also accurate. Not believed =//= ignored.

 

[stiggywiggy]

And you are unable to prove they are not. So we're back at the beginning. I don't claim there is no god. I just don't believe it. You can't prove there is a god, but you believe there is.

Since you don't claim there is no god, my remarks were not directed toward you, but rather toward ATHEISTS, who by definition claim there is no god. If you've ever met an atheist who does NOT claim there is no God, he is a walking oxymoron.

 

[Cabal]

Since you don't claim there is no god, my remarks were not directed toward you, but rather toward ATHEISTS, who by definition claim there is no god. If you've ever met an atheist who does NOT claim there is no God, he is a walking oxymoron.

Nope, you just need to realise there is more than one kind of atheist besides strong atheism, which is the kind containing a definite assertion that no Gods exist.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: Out of curiosity, are you actually reading posts before you respond to them?

That's a good question...and likewise the reason I stopped believing in the authenticity of ghost stories when I became an atheist.

Emphasis mine.

 

[hollyda]

Since you don't claim there is no god, my remarks were not directed toward you, but rather toward ATHEISTS, who by definition claim there is no god. If you've ever met an atheist who does NOT claim there is no God, he is a walking oxymoron.

Since you invoked the word "definition", I believe you are in need of a visit from my friend, the dictionary.

a·the·ist 
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

A person can be a strong atheist or a weak atheist. I am the latter. This makes me an agnostic atheist. I don't know whether or not there is a god, but I don't believe there is. It hardly disqualifies me from being an atheist.

So perhaps you need to broaden your understanding of atheism.