Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[chaseter]

I don't believe that any god, goddess, or pantheon of god(desse)s, exists. I accept the possibility. It is irrational not to. But it is equally irrational to believe that at least one god or goddess exists. There is no supportive evidence.

This is probably the most rational post in here.

 

[chaseter]

I have a cap. Every time I wear it I'm not attacked by tigers.

They actually wear hats (I am sure they call them something else) in India that has a human face drawn on a piece of cloth that hangs down the back so that Tigers won't attack them from behind. You must be wearing this hat.

 

[Sloth7d]

This is probably the most rational post in here.

Even though most posts in this thread also speak from an agnostic atheist perspective?

 

[chaseter]

Most posts do not. I see more posts talking about un-provable definitives than unknown possibilities. Maybe it's because those people are the loudest...idk.

 

[SuperFerret]

Rationality is kind of the problem here. You're not supposed to use your rational mind to figure out faith, it's an emotional process.

 

[The Filmist]

I do love whenever I hear people try and reduce religious belief of any kind to, "now, listen. We've moved past that, but the idea of a god's comforting and that's why its still around you guys, srsly."

I don't think it's really that simple, and there are far more interesting and profound reasons why the belief in a god of any kind persists with human beings past all types of societal revolution; if you ask any person who's taken the time to educate themselves about whatever faith they've chosen - because it's as useless to ask Joe Pleb about this as it is to ask those dyed-black-hair skinny jean wearing high schoolers why they chose to be an atheist - they will give you a reasonably well thought-out philosophical and even scientific explanation for their belief in a god.

I can give you mine. Just ask.

 

[Thundercrack85]

If you make fantastic claims you need fantastic evidence. Simple as that.

Most people don't believe in Thor, but if you brought them his hammer, they might listen. Until religious people can find that hammer, good luck convincing atheists.

 

[The Filmist]

Well, evidence is a funny thing, isn't it? Two people can look at the very same stars in the sky, and one can say: "My god, look at the majesty of the Lord's creation, how brimming with life it must be. Look at the organization of it, the complexity! There is a true and evident design (not in the whacky creationist definition, natch) here!"

And, the next person could say, "it's all just chaotic forces in motion, in a void of black. We're an anomaly as far as we know in this gulf, and we should consider ourselves damnably lucky that we were borne out of this mess."

Who's to say?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I would probably listen to the astrophysicists. But that's just me.

 

[redhawk23]

I do love whenever I hear people try and reduce religious belief of any kind to, "now, listen. We've moved past that, but the idea of a god's comforting and that's why its still around you guys, srsly."

I don't think it's really that simple, and there are far more interesting and profound reasons why the belief in a god of any kind persists with human beings past all types of societal revolution; if you ask any person who's taken the time to educate themselves about whatever faith they've chosen - because it's as useless to ask Joe Pleb about this as it is to ask those dyed-black-hair skinny jean wearing high schoolers why they chose to be an atheist - they will give you a reasonably well thought-out philosophical and even scientific explanation for their belief in a god.

I can give you mine. Just ask.

Also known as citing a few scientific facts and then making a wide leap of logic.

ie:

Law of Thermodynamics says that energy is neither created nor destroyed. The mind is made up of electro-chemical impulses.....IMMORTAL SOUL.

That is not a scientific claim.

 

[redhawk23]

Well, evidence is a funny thing, isn't it? Two people can look at the very same stars in the sky, and one can say: "My god, look at the majesty of the Lord's creation, how brimming with life it must be. Look at the organization of it, the complexity! There is a true and evident design (not in the whacky creationist definition, natch) here!"

And, the next person could say, "it's all just chaotic forces in motion, in a void of black. We're an anomaly as far as we know in this gulf, and we should consider ourselves damnably lucky that we were borne out of this mess."

Who's to say?

There's a complete difference in the thought process there though. The latter actually studies what is there and the mechanics of what is going on. They don't take anything at face value. There is always something else to be discovered even about the same thing. Theres always a frontier of what is known so you must push outwards, gain more information and adjust conclusions accordingly.

The theist may say "how brimming with life it must be"

the latter will try to find out.

 

[The Filmist]

Also known as citing a few scientific facts and then making a wide leap of logic.

ie:

Law of Thermodynamics says that energy is neither created nor destroyed. The mind is made up of electro-chemical impulses.....IMMORTAL SOUL.

That is not a scientific claim.

Not particularly what I was referring to, but it's telling on a personal level that your first response to my post was a particularly vehement strawman argument. This tells me that you're someone who, perhaps unconsciously, refuses to accept the fact that science is not the exclusive domain of the non-religious because how could that be?

 

[The Filmist]

There's a complete difference in the thought process there though. The latter actually studies what is there and the mechanics of what is going on. They don't take anything at face value. There is always something else to be discovered even about the same thing. Theres always a frontier of what is known so you must push outwards, gain more information and adjust conclusions accordingly.

The theist may say "how brimming with life it must be"

the latter will try to find out.

What you're implying here is that the theist will not try to find out - or, search for more answers. In general, it seems like you believe that most theists are reticent to actually learn more about the world around them - which might be true of particularly dogmatic people, I'll admit. But, and I can say this is true for myself at least, I can tell you that such narrow-minded and callow thinking on the part of the theist would be antithetical to learning more about the mysteries and the constructions of god's creation. Yes, we want to find out about more stuff. In fact, most of us are ready and willing.

I mean, I think it's hilarious that you think the theist would go, "how brimming with life he must be!" And, then trundle off somewhere and make tea, completely uncurious and forgetting all about it, as if the other guy has any more of driven motivation to find this stuff out than the theist does, completely different though their reasoning might be.

I'm assuming of course that both of these men are scientists, because Joe Schmoe on both sides would just shrug and go watch porn. Which is also a valid response.

 

[Sloth7d]

Most posts do not. I see more posts talking about un-provable definitives than unknown possibilities. Maybe it's because those people are the loudest...idk.

An unprovable definitive is an unknown possibility. Like the aforementioned post many people are merely responding to those claims by saying it's irrational to believe it. That doesn't mean they don't acknowledge the supernatural as a possibility. Even Dawkings has said, though he's an atheist, he's 60% agnostic when it comes to the super natural.

Rationality is kind of the problem here. You're not supposed to use your rational mind to figure out faith, it's an emotional process.

Karen Armstrong continuously tries to knock this point home, but I just don't buy it. There is a serious problem with faith if it doesn't matter if what you believe in is rational. That makes it seem rather meaningless to anyone whose emotional needs are satiated by worldly things and people. It also opens the door for scientific ignorance and bigotry for those who allow their emotions to take precedence over their rationality; which is most people.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Well, evidence is a funny thing, isn't it? Two people can look at the very same stars in the sky, and one can say: "My god, look at the majesty of the Lord's creation, how brimming with life it must be. Look at the organization of it, the complexity! There is a true and evident design (not in the whacky creationist definition, natch) here!"

And, the next person could say, "it's all just chaotic forces in motion, in a void of black. We're an anomaly as far as we know in this gulf, and we should consider ourselves damnably lucky that we were borne out of this mess."

Who's to say?

It's interesting to note the differences in tone between these two hypothetical characters that you present. The theist is in awe of the night sky and the non-theist or atheist is dismissive and bored with it, responding rather coldly, like a robot or a Vulcan from Star Trek. He or she even goes so far as to call it a "mess." I wonder if you're familiar with Carl Sagan, who was an astronomer and a skeptic, and always spoke of the stars, the planets, the universe, etc. with passion, respect, and a sense of wonder. He actually had a poetic way about him when he spoke of these things. Maybe you're already quite aware of this and the presentation was unintentional on your part, but I'm just pointing out that a person can have a rationalist view about the nature of the universe and still be quite in awe of it. [YT]e8P1Y1a7-L4 [/YT]

 

[redhawk23]

This is probably the most rational post in here.

That exact sentiment has been expressed many times by many people in both iterations of this thread.

 

[redhawk23]

What you're implying here is that the theist will not try to find out - or, search for more answers. In general, it seems like you believe that most theists are reticent to actually learn more about the world around them - which might be true of particularly dogmatic people, I'll admit. But, and I can say this is true for myself at least, I can tell you that such narrow-minded and callow thinking on the part of the theist would be antithetical to learning more about the mysteries and the constructions of god's creation. Yes, we want to find out about more stuff. In fact, most of us are ready and willing.

I mean, I think it's hilarious that you think the theist would go, "how brimming with life he must be!" And, then trundle off somewhere and make tea, completely uncurious and forgetting all about it, as if the other guy has any more of driven motivation to find this stuff out than the theist does, completely different though their reasoning might be.

I'm assuming of course that both of these men are scientists, because Joe Schmoe on both sides would just shrug and go watch porn. Which is also a valid response.

They may have the drive to look for answers but there are deep philosophical answers about where those answers lie and how to obtain them.

 

[redhawk23]

It's interesting to note the differences in tone between these two hypothetical characters that you present. The theist is in awe of the night sky and the non-theist or atheist is dismissive and bored with it, responding rather coldly, like a robot or a Vulcan from Star Trek. He or she even goes so far as to call it a "mess." I wonder if you're familiar with Carl Sagan, who was an astronomer and a skeptic, and always spoke of the stars, the planets, the universe, etc. with passion, respect, and a sense of wonder. He actually had a poetic way about him when he spoke of these things. Maybe you're already quite aware of this and the presentation was unintentional on your part, but I'm just pointing out that a person can have a rationalist view about the nature of the universe and still be quite in awe of it. [YT]e8P1Y1a7-L4 [/YT]

Thumbs up.

 

[The Filmist]

It's interesting to note the differences in tone between these two hypothetical characters that you present. The theist is in awe of the night sky and the non-theist or atheist is dismissive and bored with it, responding rather coldly, like a robot or a Vulcan from Star Trek. He or she even goes so far as to call it a "mess." I wonder if you're familiar with Carl Sagan, who was an astronomer and a skeptic, and always spoke of the stars, the planets, the universe, etc. with passion, respect, and a sense of wonder. He actually had a poetic way about him when he spoke of these things. Maybe you're already quite aware of this and the presentation was unintentional on your part, but I'm just pointing out that a person can have a rationalist view about the nature of the universe and still be quite in awe of it. [YT]e8P1Y1a7-L4 [/YT]

Oh, I do love me some Carl Sagan, don't get me wrong. I was just using the two of them as extreme examples to point out that 'evidence,' especially where things of such large and infinitesimal scale are concerned, can lead people to entirely different conclusions based on what is essentially their philosophical outlook.

There's no such thing as 'cold, hard evidence," I don't think - at least in this particular arena.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Wonder gave birth to religion. There's a reason Hawaiians had a volcano god, and Egyptians a sun god.

Science ultimately demystifies everything.

If people didn't understand something, they simply said "god did it". A lot of people still do. Bill O'Reilly for example, believes in god, because he doesn't understand how the tides work.

 

[redhawk23]

Not particularly what I was referring to, but it's telling on a personal level that your first response to my post was a particularly vehement strawman argument. This tells me that you're someone who, perhaps unconsciously, refuses to accept the fact that science is not the exclusive domain of the non-religious because how could that be?

There are plenty of religious folks that work in science I will not deny that at all. Hell, I go to Jesuit university and we have one of the largest research programs in the state of Missouri. Western scientific philosophy definitely has close roots with certain Christian ideals.

So please do not assume what I do or do not accept.

People from a wide variety of faith backgrounds work in science.
However, what you stated was that these people will give scientific reasons for their faith. However, ultimately, these most often represent large leaps in logic or a complete disconnect from their given evidence. At this time, there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of God. By the very nature of the situation, there pretty much nearly can't be.

People do not need evidence for their faith, I get that. That's the nature of faith.

However, that faith is not a scientific principle nor is it scientifically supported.

Also with my prior comment that you were responding to, I was referencing a discussion that we had from a few pages back.

 

[redhawk23]

Oh, I do love me some Carl Sagan, don't get me wrong. I was just using the two of them as extreme examples to point out that 'evidence,' especially where things of such large and infinitesimal scale are concerned, can lead people to entirely different conclusions based on what is essentially their philosophical outlook.

There's no such thing as 'cold, hard evidence," I don't think - at least in this particular arena.

What of what outer space is? Or the existence of life?

 

[redhawk23]

Wonder gave birth to religion. There's a reason Hawaiians had a volcano god, and Egyptians a sun god.

Science ultimately demystifies everything.

If people didn't understand something, they simply said "god did it". A lot of people still do. Bill O'Reilly for example, believes in god, because he doesn't understand how the tides work.

Wonder gave birth to science as well. Wonder is what drives everyone, religious or non to ask questions.

The difference however is in how we seek to answer them.

 

[DBryan]

Rationality is kind of the problem here. You're not supposed to use your rational mind to figure out faith, it's an emotional process.

I really have to take a step back in wonder, at just how profoundly anti-intellectual and lazy this stance is.

Rationality and the scientific method is humanity's best way of looking at the world.

If we ignored the rational in favour of emotion, if we took things on faith instead of objective and thorough analysis, where would we be?

Poor Galileo had to challenge ignorant, emotive faith based beliefs that the world was flat.

People once believed that mental illness, or even many physical kinds of illness, were forms of demonic possession. They don't have to explain it rationally, its just faith

Rationality is the problem?

No. Quite the opposite.

 

[SuperFerret]

Karen Armstrong continuously tries to knock this point home, but I just don't buy it. There is a serious problem with faith if it doesn't matter if what you believe in is rational. That makes it seem rather meaningless to anyone whose emotional needs are satiated by worldly things and people. It also opens the door for scientific ignorance and bigotry for those who allow their emotions to take precedence over their rationality; which is most people.

You're basically checking things off a list here. Faith is irrational but emotional, then it must be meaningless to anyone who has their emotional needs filled. Check. Irrationality leads to ignorance and bigotry. Check.

You don't get it, and you probably won't get it, because you're rationalizing it here too. I believe what I believe because it feels right and it makes sense to me. Simple as that.


Also, it might open the door for ignorance and bigotry, but you've got to choose to walk through that door. Even when I was kind of Christian, I didn't let that affect my scientific beliefs, and being a bigot is more the person's fault for *****ebaggery than it is the fault of what they believe. That being said, I think the other big issue in this discussion is the over-generalization of people based on their beliefs.