A tired, old trope that undermines true faith and blocks the path to common ground.
Some Atheists ... assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion.... But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color.... In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary. If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion. —Rev. Bill McGinnis, The Religion of Atheism…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, sorry, not getting your point at all. I've stated my views, nothing more nothing less, don't see the relevance of hubris at all.
77 - SHARK
Oh Dear Gawd; I'd rather have molten lead poured into my eyes than read another word game couched in the form of a doctoral thesis written by BobbySprinkle.
SHARK said: "Faith/Religion is wishful thinking based on intellectual dishonesty, a lack of curiosity, and a conclusion drawn DESPITE the Lack of Evidence."
Sprinkle addresses SHARK: "I'm curious how you can draw these conclusions. You make blanket statements about millions of people with little or no backing... I refute everything you said in this quote. I defy you to show otherwise."
Here goes, babe:
1) wishful thinking = living beyond the limits of your earthly existence; reuniting with loved ones, being "forgiven" your earthly transgressions [ie. guilt assuaged] -- finally finding "eternal happiness" -- which eluded you on earth.
2) intellectual dishonesty + lack of curiosity = giving up on pursuing and/or finding potential solutions to questions re. the nature of Universe and some/all of its inhabitants by ATTRIBUTING unexplained events (etc) as acts of "God" -- and then acting like that's actually a realistic, satisfactory, and sufficient Answer.
[see "creationist" vs Darwin for more; see also "infinite regress" argument]
3) Conclusion Drawn DESPITE the LACK OF EVIDENCE = see any religion's claim for the existence of a "god". SHOW SHARK 1 tiny smidgen of indisputable evidence, and I'll not only "convert", but I'll give Pope Benedict my next male child.
========
As Richard Dawkins [et al] points out, if you claim there's a giant teapot orbiting the earth, it's not up to me the atheist to prove it doesn't exist; it's up to you, The Looney BELIEVER to prove that it exists.
========
An agnostic is an Atheist with No Balls.
========
And here's my final, argument-ending, brain-freeze-inducing question to all believers in a "god" --
WHO MADE GOD?
=======
~NEXT!!!
======
PS: Next departure for the Circled Streets of Sematic Hell occurs in ten minutes; please stow your brain in the overhead compartment, and don't be caught without an Arbitrary Dictionary.
78 - SHARK
Dear BobbySprinkle,
I'd love to convert you to my "Religion" --
...in which we believe that
BREVITY IS A MAJOR VIRTUE.
Thanks in advance,
Witnessing Shark
79 - Michael J. West
Conclusion Drawn DESPITE the LACK OF EVIDENCE = see any religion's claim for the existence of a "god".
Of course, lack of evidence that there IS a God ≠ evidence that there ISN'T a God.
Therefore,
Conclusion Drawn DESPITE the LACK OF EVIDENCE = see any claim for the nonexistence of a "god."
Sorry, Shark, old boy; with no proof either way, the best you can do is formulate a belief.
80 - Clavos
MJW #79:
Bingo!!
Well (and succinctly) put.
81 - Clavos
Christopher:
I knew you wouldn't.
82 - duane
Kurtz: "The numbness ... the numbness."
Michael, old boy ... oh, forget it.
83 - Michael J. West
I don't know what you're bitching about, duane. I didn't say that atheism WAS a religion. I don't think it is.
I do think it's a belief, though. That's not the same thing as a religion. It's a belief. I read Shark's position and I am, in my comment, disagreeing with him. And you've not given me much reason why I shouldn't.
84 - duh
Sorry, Shark, old boy; with no proof either way, the best you can do is formulate a belief.
'tis true. Claiming that there is definitively NOT a teapot orbiting the Earth based on a lack of evidence isn't intellectually honest.
One should simply say, "I dunno. I doubt its existence (disbelief) because a teapot in space seems unlikely."
So, there is NO burden of proof. As a believer, it's not my responsibility to prove to atheists that God exists in any sort of mumbo jumbo explanation. If you don't believe in God, it's not my problem. It's yours.
And of course people believe in God because it's convenient and reassuring, but these aren't the only reasons. There are thousands of reasons that will never be articulated. I, however, rarely feel assuaged by an idea of Heaven. If anything, I fear the possibility of God, because it seems the power he yields is Just. And justice for any of us means pain.
Regardless, I'll repeat this again for people like shark who is particularly emotional about this subject. Faithists are not irrational. Big bang? no prob. millions of galaxies? no prob. children dying all over the world? no prob. Evolution? no problemo. I STILL believe in God, and that's your problem. (it seems)
85 - James
Re #75: The concept that belief comes from emotion and emotional needs would neccessitate that the belief would desist if that emotion dissipated, or the emotional need was fulfilled. People seem to use this argument quite frequently without considering the implications. Human emotion and emotional circumstances change far more rapidly than our belief systems. I could be feeling intense distrust for religion one day, have a great experience with the honesty of another religion the next, and were my atheism based entirely on my emotional paranoia this would neccessitate that I subsequently convert to the second religion (and then back away when/if my distrust were to return).
Likewise, if you are to argue that atheism stems from guilt, then there must neccessarily be no atheists that live according to religious values. Because of the wide variety of religions available to us, the liklihood that we couldn't manage to continue to live our life the way we already do and conform to a set of religious standards somewhere out there is fairly minute, particularly if you're talking about the entire atheist population of the world. I happen to know based on comparing myself to sociological data collected that I am in the top 50% with regards to Christian lifestyle within the American population. If I were to just add church I would probably be considered a good, or at minimum, adequate christian. I very strongly doubt I am the only example of this.
I do not mean to criticize your logic based on your religious belief though. This is a form of logic that is often used similarly by atheists to accuse the religious of having purely emotional reasons for their faith, when in fact the rationally requisite implications of such a claim are absurd.
Belief almost always comes from more than just emotion. Emotion, due to its shifting nature, will never be fully responsible for a lifestyle or belief.
86 - duane
Sorry, Michael. I apologize for being a shithead. Must ... find ... coffee.
I reread your comments, and I think I more or less agree with you. I do think that you're misreading Shark. He's right on the money.
Let's start with the old chestnut
Of course, lack of evidence that there IS a God [is not the same as] evidence that there ISN'T a God.
which is usually stated in more general terms thusly:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And again, the burden of proof lies on the side of those making extraordinary claims, not with those who are skeptical of such claims.
This is obvious, and does nothing to detract from Shark's plain-as-day comments.
Again, any rational atheist does not say "There is no God."
Trying to sidestep the quicksand of semantics to which these arguments usually devolve,
Absence of belief is not belief of absence.
Part of the problem is with definitions. You can find a definition of atheism that says
"Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities."
I have always adopted the first of these two. Atheism is simply the absence of belief. Some people call that agnosticism. I think the definitions are fuzzy. That's part of the problem with discussions like this.
I want someone to tear down the definitions and put them back together so that the difference between atheist and agnostic is clear. Technically, I might fall into a new category -- "militant agnostic." I have no belief in deities, I make no claim that there are no deities, and I think you're fooling yourself if you believe in deities."
87 - Michael J. West
What we may have is a semantics problem, Duane.
Look at it this way.
1) "I do not believe in God."
2) "I believe that there is no God."
Do those two statements have two different meanings? Or are they the same thing?
88 - Michael J. West
Put another way, this is really where I disagree with Shark. He says (emphasis added):
Atheism is not a "belief" in no god; it's a temporary working conclusion based on intellectual honesty coupled with a glaring Lack of Evidence.
Semantically speaking, this is not a conclusion, because it has no evidence to support it -- only a lack of evidence to refute it. It is a temporary working hypothesis. A guess, if you will.
Now, whether a "hypothesis" and a "belief" are the same thing, we can probably debate that all day.
89 - duane
Michael, that's it exactly.
The two statements convey distinct meanings.
90 - Michael J. West
So the first one, I presume, means "I don't think there's a God but I'm not prepared to believe there isn't one?"
Again...that makes it a hypothesis. Not a conclusion.
91 - duane
Michael, statements like
"I don't think there's a God but I'm not prepared to believe there isn't one?"
is so full of traps that it's not easy to confirm or deny. If I say, "I don't think there's a God," it could be construed as a conclusion based on a weighing of evidence. On the other hand, taken literally, "I don't think there's a God" is an exact expression of absence of belief.
To clarify.
Melissa: Is it cold outside?
Skippy: I don't think so.
Melissa assumes that Skippy's reply connotes a conclusion based on some kind of evidence. She goes outside, and it's freezing.
Melissa: I thought you said it wasn't cold!
Skippy: I didn't say that. I haven't been outside today.
Skippy has an absence of belief based on his lack of experiencing coldness outside. He's being literal.
92 - Michael J. West
I get what you're saying, Duane, but once again, I'm going to use the word "hypothesis."
Melissa: Is it cold outside?
Skippy: I don't think so.
In your example, Skippy has not been outside today. We don't know what he's basing his statement on, but there's an implication here that he does not have any evidence on which to base his not thinking that it's cold outside.
So it is, at best, a guess. A hypothesis.
93 - duane
Michael, Skippy is a literalist. When he says, "I don't think so," he means "I do not think in that way," which means that there is nothing in his experience at that moment that would cause him to think that it's cold outside. An atheist, my kind of atheist, says "I do not believe," which means there is nothing in his experience that would provide sufficient grounds to believe. Only in the colloquial sense does "I do not believe in gods" equate to "I believe there are no gods."
However, like anyone else, atheists usually speak colloquially, and believers usually hear colloquially, so the atheist should be aware of the popular connotation of the phrase "I do not believe," when his intention is to denote in a precise manner something different, namely, that belief in deities is absent from his worldview.
It requires no hypothesizing.
Beatrice comes over to see Skippy and Melissa, and says, "Hey, if you eat kiwi fruit every day, you can increase your IQ. What do you think of that?" Skippy says, "I don't believe that." Melissa says, ""I don't believe that." Skippy is being a literalist again, taking the position that the effect of a daily kiwi ritual is not part of his world view. He makes no hypothesis. Melissa, the colloquialist, is saying that Beatrice is wrong. She makes a hypothesis.
A proper atheist (in my opinion) makes no hypothesis concerning deities. The belief, one way or the other, is simply absent. Ask the atheist, "Do gods exist?" and he should say. "Beats me." It's the only intellectually consistent response. If an atheist says, "Gods do not exist," he puts himself into the position of having to prove the assertion, which he can't. From a logical standpoint, I think strong atheists are as misguided as believers. If the atheist says, "I doubt that gods exist," then you have the start of long, long conversation (argument), if that doubt is founded upon anything substantive.
Likewise, if a person of faith says, "Gods do exist," I say, "How do you know?" If someone struggling with their faith says, "I'm pretty sure that gods exist," I say, "Based on what?" and there's another argument.
Only the rational atheist, as opposed to a strong atheist, is freed from having to prove or justify his position. But it's not just convenience. It's the only sensible position ... as far as I know.
94 - Duh
Likewise, if a person of faith says, "Gods do exist," I say, "How do you know?" If someone struggling with their faith says, "I'm pretty sure that gods exist," I say, "Based on what?" and there's another argument.
what if a person of Faith answers, "I don't. I just believe based on my subjective experience."
Then, does the Faithist still have a burden of proof?
95 - Duh
also, duane, by your definition, it is possible to distinguish a strong faithist from a rational faithist.
Henceforth, we could deduce that rational faithists and rational atheists are more congruous in principle than the "strong" of both philosophies.
96 - Michael J. West
Ask the atheist, "Do gods exist?" and he should say. "Beats me." It's the only intellectually consistent response.
Then I think we have another semantics problem. Because as far as I'm concerned, answering "Beats me" to the question "Do Gods exist?" Is the definition of agnosticism. Because "Beats me" is a colloquial way of saying "I don't know." And there's really no distinction in that regard.
If an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, then his answer to the question "Do Gods exist?" should by any reasonable standard be at least "I don't think so," if not "Absolutely not."
In other words, Duane, I think that your definition of an atheist is most people's definition of an agnostic. "Beats me" is certainly not the same thing as "I don't think so." Not by a long shot.
97 - duane
Duh, who needs a new alias, says:
what if a person of Faith answers, "I don't. I just believe based on my subjective experience."
Let's hear the subjective experiences.
Michael: Because as far as I'm concerned, answering "Beats me" to the question "Do Gods exist?" Is the definition of agnosticism.
I've already pointed out the problem with definitions in #86.
Let me quote myself:
"Part of the problem is with definitions. You can find a definition of atheism that says
'Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities.' "
There lies the problem.
But let's at least admit that what this or that is called is not the main thing. It's just us and others trying to establish lines of communication.
"Beats me" is certainly not the same thing as "I don't think so."
Well, yeah. If someone says, "I don't think so," and means "I believe deities do not exist," then there is a need to justify the belief. I mean, if you want strict logical consistency. And I often do.
98 - Mohjho
I'm wondering if being atheist means that you have no concept of spirituality? What is the difference?
It seems that Buddhists believe that a persons belief in god is an attachment, thus illusion. However, they have a very healthy understanding of spirituality.
Any ideas?
99 - Michael J. West
Duane, you're right. I should have referred more closely to #86, particularly where you say,
Atheism is simply the absence of belief. Some people call that agnosticism. I think the definitions are fuzzy.
Which largely resolves a lot of the discussion we've been having since. My apologies for not paying more attention the first go-round.
My definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" are a little bit more cut-and-dried than yours, but probably not by a lot. In some respects it is an issue of semantics again, depending on what we mean by "God."
While I've no objective evidence either way, subjectively, it seems like vanity to suppose there's no being in the universe higher than humankind.
However, I am convinced that if there is such a higher being, it has little or nothing in common with the irrational, unjust, and unstable monster described in the Bible.
100 - duane
Michael: However, I am convinced that if there is such a higher being, it has little or nothing in common with the irrational, unjust, and unstable monster described in the Bible.
That seems like a perfectly sensible poisition to me, not just because I agree with it. I can imagine other sensible positions, but I haven't heard any yet.
....
which is a nice segue to Mohjho's #98 ...
Should we only have sensible positions? Or are faith and spirituality, which purport to knowledge of something beyond the senses, beyond logic, beyond rationalism, essential to a person's ... ummm ... actualization?
Mohjho: I'm wondering if being atheist means that you have no concept of spirituality?
What is your concept of spirituality?
101 - Bliffle
Well, Pete, I admire your persistence in sticking with this issue, but I'm afraid that the tangle of suggestion, hope, dream and bullheadedness makes it impossible to deal with. There are two levels of shifting responsibility involved: first, the faithists shift the god-proof responsibility from themselves to others, thus creating the whole idea of "atheism". As if "atheists" are the odd ducks, as if it is their burden to justify themselves. Second, they make it the "atheists" responsibility to prove this or that about themselves, like whether or not they cling to one of those tenuous "belief" systems. It's a good trick if you can get away with it. But it is just a trick.
102 - Aaron
For myself, post #98 hits it on the head.
Someone asking me: "Do you believe in God?"
is roughly equivalent to the question:
"Does the color red smell like 7+6?"
It is an illogical and meaningless question, asked from a frame of mind which assumes a reality that (to my mindset) doesn't exist.
I've always thought rationalizing belief in God with "proof" does cheapen the concept of faith as a human experience. I seems similar to the question "How do you know your mother loves you?" Sure there is evidence, but really, don't you just *know* (or don't as the case may be)? It's that indescribable feeling - a feeling I've never in my life had about God's existence.
Well anyway... thats what I believe. ;)
103 - Christopher Rose
So you'll be a faithist then, Aaron?
104 - Michael J. West
I seems similar to the question "How do you know your mother loves you?" Sure there is evidence, but really, don't you just *know* (or don't as the case may be)?
I don't know. Perhaps people whose mothers DON'T love them still think they just *know*. Besides--the whole reason we search for evidence on the God issue is because human emotional reactions aren't quite trustworthy.
105 - William K. Wolfrum
Excellent stuff.
My favorite quote about the "Atheism is a religion" BS is:
"Atheism is a religion is like not coleecting stamps is a hobby."
--WKW
106 - nugget
you guys are talking in circles. It's mildly entertaining to read.
You either believe in God or you don't. It really IS that simple.
also, most Faithists are agnostic by principle. A thinking Faithist will compliantly admit that their is no scientific proof for the object of worship.
A Faithist cannot be scientifically dishonest. I accept and love all science. True science yields truth. Science cannot refute truth or vice versa. It can only disprove false and "religious" doctrine based on assertions on that which can be physically observed.
Science is one of the great tools of God. Science was created by
God. Any man that observes the cosmos is observing the great creation.
But what do I know??? nothing. I never claimed to. I'm not making assertions. I believe that God exists for subjective and emotional reasons.
Oh, and, I like how you guys reword "belief". A "working conclusion" hahaahaha. funny stuff. "working conclusion." nice one.
107 - nugget
also: of course Atheism is not a religion. This "defense" against such a claim is just as delusional and strange as anyone who truly believe Atheism is indoctrinated.
Either way, disbelief is belief, even if it IS based on a "lack of evidence." Your "working conclusion" is still a belief.
Why is that hard to understand?
108 - sr
Comment on this comment.
109 - Pete Blackwell
It's not hard to understand, nugget. What doesn't make sense is your implication that any belief at all is a "religious" belief. I never said atheists were nihilists. They just aren't practicing a religion by not believing in god.
110 - nugget
What doesn't make sense is your implication that any belief at all is a "religious" belief.
I think you're misreading my post. Most people understand that Atheists are not practicing a "religion" by not believing in God, but they ARE practicing belief. They are practicing a Faith, not a religion. Yes I agree. Now you and Shark must admit that you are Faithists. You DO have Faith. Your "temporary working conclusion" is rooted in a belief or preference for that conclusion versus OTHER conclusions likewise with a lack of evidence.
Atheists hate the word "believe" because:
a) they hate the connotations and stereotypes that flood the mind when it hits the ear. Worst-case generalizations do not aid in your understanding of anything. I'd suggest you pay attention to thinking Faithists, not the crazy ones.
b) they think it does not apply to them.
Agnostics have it right because ANY conclusion, whether it's temporary or working is NOT based on any proof. It's based on a LACK of proof. Therefore you cannot make a conclusion. The rhetoric swallows itself.
more breaking info: I'm an agnostic who just happens to believe in God. An agnostic cannot say for sure whether or not God exists, so I don't, but I will say that I believe in God. There IS a difference.
Pete, you are confused with the semantics here. People say "Atheism is a religion" because atheists typically havn't thought too much about the implications of their often dogmatic assertions. I think you took the stab literally and at face value, so you felt the need to defend your philosophy. This is understandable and I don't blame you. Extremely religious people are guilty of the same thing. They want to prove that God does exist by trying desperately to make him a physical reality. They crave the miraculous to justify their beliefs. In reality, they are sticking it to detractors and possible threats.
Faith is tricky. On the surface it can reek of lackluster philosophy, one that has been ill-conceived and created out of mere convenience. Faith in principle, however, does not negate curiosity. A person with Faith can be just as curious as the most restless atheist objectivist.
Again, the difference is almost too simple. You either believe in God or you do not. You cannot say that you've reached a "temporary working conclusion.." That's a classic oxymoron.
"temporary conclusion" = hardly conclusive.
Case in point. You don't believe in God and that's ok. I do. Physical evidence has absolutely nothing to do with it.
111 - george
Sorry, Rev. Bill. A newborn out of the womb is not practicing the religion of atheism - he is simply nonreligious. And there's no reason this nonreligiousness can't continue into his adult life.
Indeed, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, not playing hockey is not a sport and not practicing a religion is not a religion.
112 - Pete Blackwell
Nugget, first off, I never said anything about a "temporary working conclusion". You're confusing me with another commenter on this thread.
I don't think most atheists have a problem with the word "belief". To the contrary, since atheism is the belief that there's no god. What many if not most may balk at is the term "faith".
The two cannot be conflated. Faith is a type of belief, but belif is not the same thing as faith. If it is, then the whole concept of religion is meaningless (even to the believers).
If I believe that the Bears will humiliate the Rams on Monday night, is that the same thing as saying that I believe in a supernatural being who created all life and, indeed, all of existence? I hope not, for your sake.
It's also not true that believing in god and not believing in god rest on the same burden of truth. An atheist does not need to resort to supernatural arguments to get to his or her point of belief. The lack of evidence in the existence of god is enough. A religious person may acknowledge that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of god but believes nonetheless. That is the definition of faith.
As a person claiming the existence of a supernatural being, the burden is on you to prove that he exists. It's not my job to prove that he doesn't. It's as if I told you that all rainbows were actually made of Skittles. If you told me you didn't believe that, it would be bizarre for me to say that your position is as tenuous as mine.
Faith is a powerful and, for some people, wonderful thing. It's not to be mocked and denigrated by comparing it to atheism. Faith is, by definition, a positive and transcendent belief. Atheism may be about a lot of things, but transcendence isn't one of them.
113 - nugget
Faith is a type of belief, but belif is not the same thing as faith.
Very true. This only serves the crux of my rants. Perhaps my my previous strawman should have been Shark. Shark clearly represents the atheist who is mostly reactionary. His emotions and hurtful experiences burden his clarity. He wishes only to smear those he sees as a threat.
As a person claiming the existence of a supernatural being
spare me. I think I've covered this. I havn't claimed a thing. The burden of proof does not exist. That's my whole point. Reread the last sentence in #110.
Faith is a powerful and, for some people, wonderful thing. It's not to be mocked and denigrated by comparing it to atheism. Faith is, by definition, a positive and transcendent belief. Atheism may be about a lot of things, but transcendence isn't one of them.
This is an excellent point. Please elaborate.
114 - nugget
Is it safe to say, Pete, that a belief in God is purely a subjective, emotional decision? I think we can agree on this.
115 - nugget
*add "or disbelief" in my last comment.
116 - Pete Blackwell
Faith is a subjective thing. The disbelief in god, for many atheists, is not. It's based on the lack of objective evidence in favor of the existence of god.
The emotions surrounding the theism/atheism debate really run the gamut. For some believers, rationality plays a big role in their religious belief. For some atheists, emotion helps inform their beliefs.
I have been using the scientific atheism as my base point in these comments, but the point of my article is that this is only one way in which atheism is expressed.
My point about transcendence is perhaps just a restating of my original thesis. Religion, in almost all cases, is about transcendence"whether of the earthly realm or of the trappings of the physical body. Atheism rarely is. In fact, atheists tend to believe that transcendence in a religious sense is not possible or desirable.
117 - nugget
The disbelief in god, for many atheists, is not. It's based on the lack of objective evidence in favor of the existence of god.
That's only half true, because your disbelief takes root in so many subjective things. Belief, we agree, is not irrational, and because it is a very natural part of our existence, objective AND subjective stimuli are what mold our beliefs.
You'd be dishonest if you said subjective experiences did not aid your conclusion. It's not just based on a lack of physical evidence. It's based on a lack of subjective evidence as well. I believe my dog behaves the way he does for objective and subjective reasons. I believe that there is extraterrestral life based on objective and subjective reasons.
Astrophysicists, neurologists, psychiatrists, etc. with identical merited credentials as professionals may completely disagree on several salient issues. Who should we believe?? The scientist! ok they're all scientists. We have a problem. We must believe one or the other. We must make a working conclusion based on just evidence? no, because you will never invest as much time and energy as either scientist in that field. Hell, you just read it in Time Magazine and will forget it in a week. Thus, you are forced to make a conclusion steeped in a juxtaposition of objective and subjective reasoning. We do this everyday.
118 - nugget
In fact, atheists tend to believe that transcendence in a religious sense is not possible or desirable.
I think you said it for me.
The real problem with MOST Atheists is this: they think they are being entirely objective and that everyone else is utilizing objectivity and rationality. This is NOT true for the reasons I have explained. I do not claim that God exists in physics. I state that I believe that he/she/it (something meta, outside of time, space, and logic) created all this for reasons beyond comprehension. I believe this for subjective reasons, just like atheists also believe that there is no such "God" for subjective reasons.
To claim otherwise is like saying you're not biased when you watch the news. Foxnews says the war is hunky dory. CNN says babies are dying. Are you going to go make the trek to Iraq to find out for yourself? That would be the objective thing to do. Feelings, instincts, hopes and fears will play a part in your final decision.
I repeat: The burden of proof is superfluous! it's a mere distraction!
119 - nugget
second paragraph, first sentence I misspoke.
Atheist think that everyone else is NOT utilizing objectivity.
120 - Nelson
The commentors from the Top 100 guitarists think everyone here is wasting their time.
HA-HA!
121 - Pete Blackwell
I don't think you're in a position to say how objective or subjective the basis for my belief is. If you believe in a supernatural being who created existence "for reasons beyond comprehension", it's not subjective for me to be skeptical.
You're the one with the fantastical claim and, objectively, such a claim should be considered to be erroneous unless proven otherwise. It's not my responsibility to prove that the observable world is, in fact, the observable world.
But, as you point out, your god exists above and beyond the strictures of objectivity and the concept of objective proof doesn't make sense in your mind when talking about him. Fine. That's a hallmark of religious faith. It's your right to subscribe to such beliefs. What is intellectually dishonest is to claim that people who do not believe in your mystical extrasensory fourth dimension super being are somehow taking the same leap of faith that you are. It's just not true.
I will agree that it's nonsensical to argue over which approach is "better". One thing we can agree on, however, is that they're very different. That was the point of my article. Religion and atheism are two entirely separate things. I would never argue that religious people do not or cannot think in the realm of objectivity. But there is nothing objective about religious faith itself.
I think only a true solipsist would buy into your argument that objectivity means only believing things you have experienced directly. Truly, there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, since even our own brains can trick us into seeing things that aren't there. That doesn't mean you're being subjective when you belive anything about which you have no direct experience.
Have you ever been to Cairo? Let's say no. Do you believe it exists, though, in a country called Egypt beside a river called the Nile? I hope you do. Now, you're going to base your belief on a number of factors. You've certainly seen Cairo on TV. You have read about it in books. Perhaps you personally know someone who has been there or even lived there.
You believe Cairo exists because of the concurrence of numerous eyewitness accounts (coupled with the complete absence of claims that Cairo is a myth) and, critically, because you know that if you could scratch together the cash, you could in fact go there and prove it to yourself, objectively, as it were.
It would be not just unusual but outright objectionable to compare this kind of "faith" in the existence of Cairo with a religious faith in god. If they truly are the same thing, than what you pray to is so utterly banal as to be worthless"even by your own standards.
Trust or belief in the scientific method is no different. It has a bias toward objectivity built into it. No finding is accepted by the scientific community unless it can be reproduced by other scientists conducting the same experiment. The recent fate of the poor Korean cloning specialist is testament to what happens when your research is fudged.
Scientific conclusions are always being challenged and revised. This is how objectivity works. The scientists who merit the public's trust are those who are open to challenge and revision, and who have as their end goal a greater scientific understanding of what they are studying.
You can argue that it's impossible to know who to trust, and maybe you're right to a point. But if you push too far, you run into Occam's Razor. Either science is a grand conspiracy of subjectivity masquerading as objectivity, or it's what it appears to be: a good faith effort to increase understanding through the pooling of knowledge.
122 - nugget
You're the one with the fantastical claim and, objectively, such a claim should be considered to be erroneous unless proven otherwise.
not true. I have no objective claim. I have a belief. I have belabored this point. Subjectively, it is not to be considered "erroneous" because that would be absurd.
Truly, there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, since even our own brains can trick us into seeing things that aren't there. That doesn't mean you're being subjective when you belive anything about which you have no direct experience.
That's fair. I won't argue this point.
Either science is a grand conspiracy of subjectivity masquerading as objectivity, or it's what it appears to be: a good faith effort to increase understanding through the pooling of knowledge.
It's not that simple. It's both. Science faces the same accursed duality as any other field because it is run by men who are prone to mistakes. That's not to say science is invaluable.
Albeit I don't know how to make it more clear to you that I am not making an objective claim when I talk about a "mystical extrasensory fourth dimension super being." It's a decision based on SUBJECTIVE experience. I don't see a tree and think "hmmm, I wonder how that got there? I guess God did it cause how else???" Sorry, but this is your delusion about thinking Faithists. The origin of species, the evolution of man, the physics of Earth's orbit, and anything the Hubble telescope can pick up has NOTHING to do with my subjective Faith. You could claim that Sodom was destroyed by natural causes, the world flood never happened, man evolved, and the Bible was written by a prostitute and I would laugh. It doesn't shake my purely subjective resolve that God probably exists. For the last time, I'm not making any claim.
You're claiming that I'm making an objective claim. You are consistantly misrepresenting what I'm saying.
Let me add that the minute you realize someone has Faith in a sky daddy, any credibility you might have warranted them previous to this knowledge is defenestrated. I can deduce this from the manner in which you speak about people of Faith in your previous post.
If you post again, are you going to repeat that I'm making a claim that has no evidence to support it? Do you still think that's what we're arguing about??
123 - nugget
Furthermore. Why don't you elaborate a little more about what you think of people with a Faith in a benevolent God? Do you think all the brilliant artists, doctors, lawyers, musicians of Faith just had a stupid switch??
How can a man win a Supreme court case, perform open heart surgery, paint the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, write the Mass in B minor, the Brandenburg Concertos, pioneer movements in philosophy with a stupid "Faith" switch? I guess Michelangelo was missing some objectivity in his statue of David. Perhaps a disbelief in a silly God would have made up for all those mistakes.
Finally, you said this: What is intellectually dishonest is to claim that people who do not believe in your mystical extrasensory fourth dimension super being are somehow taking the same leap of faith that you are. It's just not true.
Not the exact same one, just a different one.
Someone says, "I don't have any evidence that God exists, however I choose to believe that he does.
You say, "I don't have any evidence that God exists, thus I choose not to believe that he does."
Because the positive belief exists, the equally relevant negative belief must exist.
If I believe that there are blue, asexual aliens who communicate by emitting a variety of odors, then you are challenged to believe or disbelieve. Objectivity plays no part because neither of us have proof. If you say you don't believe these aliens exist, that's fine. But it's pointless to argue.
Ridiculous? perhaps. Does the leap of faith exist on both sides? Of course it does. Your position is that it sucks to be in a position of believing or disbelieving because someone else believed first. you feel that it's unfair.
understandable, but it has nothing to do with you being more objective or rational. Nothing.
124 - nugget
This is my last comment until I hear from you again.
Of course Atheism isn't a religion. Of course. This is obvious.
You believe God does not exist. You were forced into such a conclusion because someone said, not claimed or asserted, but said that they believed. Sucks for you? Well I dunno. I'm not here to give any guilt trips.
I want you to be honest, Pete. You disbelieve in God for subjective reasons, not for objective reasons. Just be honest and say that. You can't depend on evidence or a lack thereof for a conclusion to a subjective matter. I have dressed this point up in a neon jumpsuit for you to see. Belief and disbelief in God is subjective.
I think what you mean to say is this, "it's irresponsible for someone to believe in something they cannot see. It causes problems, controversy, and some people can't handle such implications"
125 - Pete Blackwell
Nugget, you obviously haven't read my original post or you wouldn't accuse me of believing religious people have a "stupid switch" or any of the other things you rashly accuse me of.
In your first comment, you make my point for me. Religious faith is a subjective, personal thing. It is self evidently very different from atheism. That's my point.
Here's the duality you propose: Someone says, "I don't have any evidence that God exists, however I choose to believe that he does.
You say, "I don't have any evidence that God exists, thus I choose not to believe that he does."
There is a major difference here and it hinges on a single word. In proposition 1, you appropriately use the word "however". In prop. 2 you use the word "thus". I think the second sentence would be fine without "choose not to", but you basically have it right.
Prop 1 is a choice to believe something that runs contrary to the evidence. Prop 2 is allowing your belief to be informed by the evidence. Two strikingly different things.
I never said anything about one position being right or wrong. I never said it "sucks" to have subjective beliefs. In fact, in my post, I credit religion with a critical role in building our civilization. I would appreciate if you wouldn't put words in my mouth and I would especially appreciate it if you wouldn't radically misrepresent my views in doing so.
On the objective/subjective front: Do you believe that God actually exists? If so, then he must objectively exist. You can have whatever subjective belief you want, but you're still making a claim. And I can objectively examine your subjective belief and try to determine if what you believe to be true is, in fact, true. There's no contradiction there. You certainly don't have to care what I think, but that doesn't mean I have to accept what you think.