Atheism, anti-identification, and faith

[Tiassa]

We might look at the history of Sciforums' debates pertaining to atheism in order to establish a few a priori, which anyone is free to argue with.

• Atheists do not believe in God.
• There is no central, official governing atheist body.
• Atheism does not reject subjectivity or operate exclusively on a proof-only basis.
• Atheists do have their own individual superstitions and objectively-inexplicable perspectives.

Adam and Tiassa touched on the idea of whether atheists tend toward overt and detrimental objectivization of the world. On the one hand, such an objectivization is experiential to Tiassa; to the other, Adam has protested that this objectivization is not a necessary part of atheism.

But we're getting to a point where it's getting really quite difficult to perceive atheism as anything other than an anti-identification. That is, what we hear about atheism is what it is not. Understanding the diversity of individuals and the intellectual license that atheism inherently grants, though, one would hope that the atheists could possibly provide some affirmative presentation of what the absence of God gets them. However, as we see, atheism at Sciforums is largely a platform from which to criticize.

Thus, some sundry beliefs from the human endeavor:

• Ufos
• Ghosts
• Afterlife
• Love
• Right(s)
• State
• Familial obligation
• Couplehood/exclusivity
• Jealousy
• Property/ownership
• Morality

Take the first three--they're common inquiries to which we can expect a diverse response. But of the others, what you have before you is a core of questions of principle which, when I accuse atheism of cold and detrimental objectivity, reflect the reasons why.

My own atheistic experience reduced love to weakness, led to the downfall of my regard for either the state or human rights as an objective necessity, exposed family as a petty farce, trampled couplehood, ridiculed jealousy while elevating it to an art form, leaned on property and possession, and essentially threw out any sense of morality which regards other people as anything other than a target market.

But, being that I've been asked to accept on faith that this is not representative of the atheistic experience, I find the anti-identification somewhat worthy of ridicule.

However, as we cannot ever define a cohesive "atheist" body the way we might delineate a "Christian" or "Socialist" body, the identification of atheism as what it isn't cannot suffice.

Ufo's, ghosts, afterlife ... do all atheists reject such subjective mythologies, or do some accept them? Upon what foundation is acceptance based?

Do atheists love? (Of course they do.) But why?

Are atheists law-abiding citizens? Which law and why?

How does the atheist view "human rights"? Why? What objective basis exists for human rights?

Is the family of an atheist any more important to the atheist than anyone else? Why?

Are atheists, by standard, free-love? What are the objective bases of couplehood and exclusivity among atheists?

What, then, does the atheist say of jealousy?

Property is robbery; so say the godless Anarchists. Anyone? Anyone?

Morals: perhaps the utmost source of conflict 'twixt atheism and Christianity. It seems that the Christians cannot imagine morality for morals' sake. Upon what basis are right and wrong, in a moral context, determined?

I'll even throw in an assertion that comes from considerations of such points as I've enumerated: it seems to me that human beings are human beings, with largely common aspirations. Atheism rejects God, that is, authority in the abstract, but responds otherwise to equally unproven standards.

I'm curious about why this is. I've been asked to take on faith that atheists do not reflect my experience among them. Unfortunately, that sounds just like what the Christians tell me on occasion.

So instead of leaping to a faith conclusion, I thought I'd do take the more rational route and ask the atheists? I mean, after all, what is observed and experienced is apparently not valid, so the call goes out to the atheists: What shall I believe in faith?

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[James R]

tiassa,

As mentioned in another thread, I would not call myself an atheist. However, I'll have a go at answering you as best I can, until somebody more qualified comes along.

I would say that atheism is nothing more than a position regarding the existence of gods. It is not a religion in itself, so it prescribes no single set of morals or attitudes regarding the human condition. All it says is that there is no good evidence for gods; hence they are unlikely to exist.

In my own experience, I've seen atheists try to tack on all kinds of other things under the banner of atheism, but I don't think that is justifiable. Atheism is only concerned with gods, not with a presciption of how to live your life. By the sounds of it, your experience of atheism seemed to include rejection of certain moral values common to many religions. I don't know why that was the case - atheism itself does not mandate that.

In reply to your questions, here are my thoughts:

<i>Ufo's, ghosts, afterlife ... do all atheists reject such subjective mythologies, or do some accept them? Upon what foundation is acceptance based?</i>

Some atheists no doubt believe in UFOs. Belief in the afterlife and ghosts is less likely, since I imagine the average atheist would reject such things for very similar reasons why they reject the existence of gods. Atheism cannot be directly equated with skepticism, although some atheists will tell you that it can.

<i>Do atheists love? (Of course they do.) But why?</i>

It's human nature.

<i>Are atheists law-abiding citizens? Which law and why?</i>

Any atheist must have a personal system of morals. Certainly, it is possible to have a moral system without religion. Morality can be based on utilitarianism or secular humanism, for example. Both are compatible with atheism. Similarly, "Do unto others..." can be removed from its Christian context and adopted as a moral stance for good reason by an atheist. It is a matter of self-interest.

<i>What objective basis exists for human rights?</i>

Utilitarianism comes to mind again. The greatest happiness for the greatest number. Human rights seems a good way to achieve that. However, as I've said, utilitarianism isn't limited to atheists, nor is it compulsory for them.

<i>Is the family of an atheist any more important to the atheist than anyone else? Why?</i>

There are good biological reasons as to why any human being values family. It is human nature to do so. You share the most genes with your closest relatives. Of course, "is" should not be confused with "ought" here.

<i>Are atheists, by standard, free-love? What are the objective bases of couplehood and exclusivity among atheists?</i>

I think atheism has nothing to say about this.

<i>What, then, does the atheist say of jealousy?</i>

Nothing, without more.

<i>Upon what basis are right and wrong, in a moral context, determined?</i>

There are many possible bases of morality. This is a whole area of philosophy. Morality need not be tied to religion.

 

[Xev]

Do atheists love? (Of course they do.) But why?

Oooh baby, you bet we do.

It's our nature as humans to fall in love. Love sucks, though.

Are atheists law-abiding citizens? Which law and why?

The laws of the United States of America, most of the time.

I will admit to a few drinks, (under 21), and occasional speeding (nothing major, as I haven't a car anyway )

How does the atheist view "human rights"? Why? What objective basis exists for human rights?

Sacred, yet malleable.

Objective basis - you don't hurt me, I don't hurt you.

Is the family of an atheist any more important to the atheist than anyone else? Why?

Human nature, I suppose.

Are atheists, by standard, free-love? What are the objective bases of couplehood and exclusivity among atheists?

Human nature again. For the record, exclusivity blows.

What, then, does the atheist say of jealousy?

Human nature again.

Property is robbery; so say the godless Anarchists. Anyone? Anyone?

No.

I think, Tiassa, that you are confusing actual athiesm (the disbelief in or denial of the existance of a God or Gods) with the various edifices some athiests have built up to explain things.

 

[Tiassa]

James R ...

James R

As mentioned in another thread, I would not call myself an atheist. However, I'll have a go at answering you as best I can, until somebody more qualified comes along.

Indeed; I ran into the same problem myself in another topic; not atheism, though.

I would say that atheism is nothing more than a position regarding the existence of gods

I know. But they're so determined to remind us that it's a position derived from logic and rational thinking and objectivity that I do, in fact, wonder where those rational, objective, logical lines are drawn. Actually, I see that I would hold that point for the next couple of sentences, so apologies for not stuffing them into the citation above.

By the sounds of it, your experience of atheism seemed to include rejection of certain moral values common to many religions. I don't know why that was the case - atheism itself does not mandate that.

Well, it isn't a mandate as much as it is a consistent result. It's widespread is the problem, and I don't get it because so far there's nothing in your post that I would actually disagree with.

But it's not as if my atheist friends and I lived according to a doctrine that stated all those things. But those things were, indeed, the consistent results. It's a curiosity. I've spent half my life trying to figure out how Christians tick. Now I might as well see what I can figure out about the reactionary wing that I didn't get the first time.

Some atheists no doubt believe in UFOs. Belief in the afterlife and ghosts is less likely, since I imagine the average atheist would reject such things for very similar reasons why they reject the existence of gods

Strangely, though, the case for Ufos and ghosts is about the same. I tend to wonder if the line is drawn because ghosts are related to spirit is related to gods and Ufos are related to science. Nonetheless, the existence of ghosts speaks no more toward the existence of God than the existence of Ufos or bacon-cheeseburgers.

Atheism cannot be directly equated with skepticism, although some atheists will tell you that it can.

I think if it was a cohesive religion, it would be the religion of skepticism. A very interesting point you've made.

Any atheist must have a personal system of morals. Certainly, it is possible to have a moral system without religion. Morality can be based on utilitarianism or secular humanism, for example. Both are compatible with atheism. Similarly, "Do unto others..." can be removed from its Christian context and adopted as a moral stance for good reason by an atheist. It is a matter of self-interest.

And I won't argue with a word of it. But consider: a Christian obeys their moral set because they are convinced that it is right. The foundation for that correctness is God. That is, a conceptual authority legitimizes the perception of what is right, so to speak. Now, to move over to the objective side of the aisle, what legitimizes what any individual takes as a moral base? Self-interest? This speaks ill of, uh ... human nature, doesn't it?

Utilitarianism comes to mind again. The greatest happiness for the greatest number. Human rights seems a good way to achieve that. However, as I've said, utilitarianism isn't limited to atheists, nor is it compulsory for them

But what is the objective basis for human equality, or happiness? Happiness is an individual perception. Objectively, life respects the species first.

There are good biological reasons as to why any human being values family. It is human nature to do so. You share the most genes with your closest relatives. Of course, "is" should not be confused with "ought" here.

Biological reasons? Beyond the preparation of the young, what else is there? Sentiment--that's what I'm after. If I have a choice between my mother and my girlfriend, as the recent topic had it, I'd probably pick my mother out of obligation, and I know a good number of people that would do the same. But the "biological" propriety would be to rescue the girlfriend, with whom I can mate and reinforce the species.

I think atheism has nothing to say about this.

See, that's the thing. I think couplehood and exclusivity might well be subjective, as with jealousy. We will not pretend here that atheists don't get jealous. We will not pretend here that atheists are uniformly free-love. But beyond the rationally-derived need to reinforce the species with young, what is the point of it?

There are many possible bases of morality. This is a whole area of philosophy. Morality need not be tied to religion

Indeed. But if morality is to be a rational determination, what is the rational basis?

Again, though, I must repeat that I disagree with none of it insofar as I can tell. But I do counterpoint it because what I'm attempting to chase down, essentially, is what constitutes rational, objective, and logical? We cannot limit ourselves to the visible, for we see that such limitations would define any individual, regardless of labels, as almost wholly irrational in moral and social conduct.

So it's a curiosity .....

thanx kindly,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Human nature? Isn't that a little ... weak?

Xev

• It's our nature as humans to fall in love.

Well, doesn't history show that it's our nature as humans to believe in Gods? Seems awfully tenuous, that position.

• The laws of the United States of America, most of the time.

What objective basis is there for those laws? We only obey them because we choose to. They only have power because of a convention of people. This process is unacceptable to atheism elsewhere; why is it acceptable here? Functionality? Comfort and profit?

What I'm after is that if you look around, laws of society are as arbitrary as any other human convention. What objective principle gives the law authority? Perhaps the coercion of enforcement devices? What gives those devices the right? (See, it overlaps with the myth of rights.)

And since that law is flexible, what law do you actually respond to? (Note: I won't be surprised if it's Xev's Law; such an end is eventual unless one draws arbitrary and unfounded stopping points.)

• Objective basis - you don't hurt me, I don't hurt you.

That's a matter of convention. Do human rights exist? Why? That is, what objective or rational basis is there to reject the enslavement, torture, or other "abuses" of human beings?

What makes that human life so important?

• Human nature, I suppose.

Again the tenuous standard. Nebulous, too.

And since I'll be repeating that a couple of times, it looks like, I'll just leave it at that.

• No.

Hmm ...

How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? (Chief Sealth)

To the other, that property is robbery is a difficult standard to work around once acknowledged. But still, it really does seem that the only reality is what the atheist says it is. Strange, that ....

I think, Tiassa, that you are confusing actual athiesm (the disbelief in or denial of the existance of a God or Gods) with the various edifices some athiests have built up to explain things.

Funny, that. It's the same thing Christians tell me about the legitimacy of their God.

In the end, what it is has little to do with definitions of atheism except that the factors I noted happened to be the result of philosophies developed by atheists within my observable experience.

What seems to be happening is the same sort of subjective objectivity that happens among religions. To wit, Catholic philosophies are, indeed, airtight, save for that little a priori of God's existence. Other than that--rather, once that's accepted--it's a pretty solid argument.

In the same way, the limits of what is real seem to be utterly arbitrary. The only other explanation I can find is that those limits are prescribed as rules toward self-advancement, which leaves them thoroughly subjective, anyway.

If human nature doesn't cut it for me at this point, it's because such arguments don't suffice for those things that atheists reject. To rely on human nature is to place faith in the nature of humans and to govern one's actions according to that irrational faith.

Thus, it seems that an atheist rejects God because God has dominion. State and economy also have dominion, but those myths bring immediate rewards--e.g. wealth--whereas God is a posthumous payoff that cannot be confirmed. Love has an immediate reward. Property has a tangible aspect. I find this division very curious. Human rights, for instance, have no rational foundation whatsoever; human rights presume the individual over the species, a thoroughly absurd notion in terms of what is observable in nature. Democracy and liberty may, in fact, be bad for the human species as a whole. By and large, I don't believe this to be true, but in the end, I don't want to live in dictatorial misery and I don't want my neighbors to. But it might be that if we organized ourselves according to a soulless vision of the species' success, we could accomplish that vision without sentiment. Of course, those processes would require the sacrifice of the comfort, health, and lives of many.

I just find it amazing how alike people actually are. Sometimes it seems as if all of our conflicts are simple choices to be in conflict.

In the end, I hear the atheists knocking on these points, but it seems that rational objectivity has its subjective limits.

To quote the late Layne Staley, "Name your God and bleed the freak."

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[James R]

tiassa,

<i>I tend to wonder if the line is drawn because ghosts are related to spirit is related to gods and Ufos are related to science.</i>

I think that's exactly why the line is drawn.

<i>a Christian obeys their moral set because they are convinced that it is right. The foundation for that correctness is God. That is, a conceptual authority legitimizes the perception of what is right, so to speak. Now, to move over to the objective side of the aisle, what legitimizes what any individual takes as a moral base?</i>

That's an interesting point. I would say that nothing actually legitimizes a moral stance. A Christian acts morally ... why exactly? Because God told him to? Because if he doesn't, God will punish him in the afterlife? If the basis of the moral stance is the authority of God, that doesn't seem like a very solid foundation to me. Who says that God must be right? Perhaps God is malicious. If the basis of the moral stance is fear of consequences, then we're back to self-interest again.

Any moral stance is ultimately based, I think, on a belief that something is right or wrong. For example, you may take as a basic principle that unnecessary suffering is wrong, and derive your morals from that base. However, nothing actually legitimizes that. Although most people would agree that suffering is bad, are we to simply accept majority rule on such things?

This argument goes round and round in circles. Different people can argue different bases for what our morality <b>should</b> be, but there's no legitimization there, I don't think. To take another view, we can look at how the majority of humans actually live their lives and come to conclusions as to what types of morality are most prevalent. Of course, that doesn't do anything to legitimize the majority view, whatever it might be. It might, however, tell us something about "human nature", whatever that is.

<i>Happiness is an individual perception. Objectively, life respects the species first.</i>

I agree with you that happiness is an individual thing to some extent, although we all share certain basic wants related to our basic needs, without which we cannot be happy.

I am puzzled by your last statement - that life respects the species first. From a scientific perspective, the picture that evolution gives us is that life cares nothing for species. It is individuals which compete with each other to get ahead in the struggle of life at the ground level, not species.

<i>Beyond the preparation of the young, what else is there? Sentiment--that's what I'm after. If I have a choice between my mother and my girlfriend, as the recent topic had it, I'd probably pick my mother out of obligation, and I know a good number of people that would do the same. But the "biological" propriety would be to rescue the girlfriend, with whom I can mate and reinforce the species.</i>

No. Here's how it works from the point of view of the "selfish gene": Your genes "want" to get passed on to the next generation. What is their best bet for doing that most effectively? The answer is to protect any other copies of themselves that they "know" about. Now, you share 50% of your genes with each of your parents, and 50% with each of your siblings. You share 25% of your genes with your first cousins. And so on. If some people are drowning, who should you save? Your mother and sister or your girlfriend? From your genes' perpective, your mother and sister are a better bet for maximizing your chances of passing on your genes. If they have offspring, you will share, on average, 25% of your genes with those offspring. As for the girlfriend, any children you have with her will share 50% of your genes, but there's nothing special about the girlfriend's genes as far as your genes are concerned. There are plenty more potential mates out there, and chances are you can still breed with them whilst at the same time rescuing existing copies of your genes by saving your mother and sister, given them a chance to spread your genes too.

Note: I am not trying to derive any moral imperative from this argument. I am simply pointing out what biological factors would favour in this instance.

<i>We will not pretend here that atheists don't get jealous. We will not pretend here that atheists are uniformly free-love. But beyond the rationally-derived need to reinforce the species with young, what is the point of it?</i>

Again, I can explain a genetic basis of jealousy. You want your wife or girlfriend to bear <i>your</i> children, not somebody else's, because that is how you pass on your genes. Therefore, you will tend to be somewhat possessive of her and her reproductive capacity. You would not want to support her if she is to bear somebody else's child rather than yours.

To close, I'd like to make the point that I am not advocating that we fall into the naturalistic stance, which is a false base for morality. That stance suggests that we should do as our genes dictate. But our genes consistently dictate self-interest. They care nothing for the species or other individuals. Luckily, they do not control our actions. We can choose our own system of morals according to what we believe to be the right thing to do. That choice may not be legitimizable, but it can be justifiable.

 

[Xev]

Tiassa:

Well, doesn't history show that it's our nature as humans to believe in Gods? Seems awfully tenuous, that position.

I don't find it tenuous at all. Falling in love is partly cultural, partly innate. Belief in God may be as well - so what?

What I'm after is that if you look around, laws of society are as arbitrary as any other human convention. What objective principle gives the law authority? Perhaps the coercion of enforcement devices? What gives those devices the right? (See, it overlaps with the myth of rights.)

Since when were athiests necessarily Objectivists? In any case, the choice to follow the law is made for several reasons:

Belief in the 'justness' of a law
Fear of punishment

What gives those devices the right? (See, it overlaps with the myth of rights.)

Power, I suppose. 'Rights' are fairly subjective.

What makes that human life so important?

I don't want to die. Death is eternal. That's what makes life important.

Which is subjective - obviously -

But I fail to see your point. This cannot be construed as a condemnation of athiesm in any way, shape or form. To claim such would be to commit the fallacy of 'appeal to negative consequences'.

And we wouldn't want that. Frankly, I have been trying to find a logical basis for morality. Perhaps one day I shall. Perhaps I won't.

After a few more drinks, I have a decent chance of doing so.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by tiassa
• Atheists do not believe in God.
• There is no central, official governing atheist body.
• Atheism does not reject subjectivity or operate exclusively on a proof-only basis.
• Atheists do have their own individual superstitions and objectively-inexplicable perspectives.

The problem here is you are attempting to analyze Atheism as a complete or consistent philosophy. It's not. Atheism is simply a declaration that one does not believe in God or Gods. It may be a tenet of one's philosophy but it is not, in itself, enough to base a personal philosophy of life upon. It is no more descriptive than simply calling one's self a theist. As is somewhat evident in this forum, and quite evident when you look at history and the world at large, simply defining one self as theist could mean any number of contradictory beliefs, values, morals, etcetera which provide no consistent or logical position that can be labeled simply as Theist.

Atheists will generally argue on the basis of empirical evidence, or lack thereof. As you point out, this belies an inconsistancy as most atheists do not apply this method across the entire spectrum of their beliefs. However, it is not quite as inconsistent as you suggest. One may be empiricist only to the limits of our perception. Beyond this the field is wide open.

It is evident even in these forums that atheists do not ague against theist beliefs equally. One finds far less opposition to Nelson's messages of love or Jan's position that one has to experience God before one can perceive the evidence for God than you'll find for a Biblicist such as Sir Loone. The difference lies in the imponderables in the arguments.

The Biblicist and other literalist traditions are taking an empirical position. It is therefore correct for the atheist to argue this from a differing empirical standpoint. The fact that the atheist may not hold to empiricism for all their beliefs is simply an ad hominim attack. The inconsistency of the person does not invalidate the particular argument.

You ask several questions regarding atheist's beliefs regarding UFO's, spirits, love, property, etc. The problem is, however, that few people who regard themselves as atheists will share beliefs across all of those questions. You'd get similar results asking these questions to Aclausians (people who don't believe in Santa Claus).

You seem to be striving at a deeper issue though. Your experience with atheism seems to have entailed a strictly mechanistic/deterministic philosophy. I would suggest that it is the m/d philosophy that your arguments address and not atheism. And I would concur with your perceptions of the m/d philosophy as dehumanizing and dispiriting. One need not reduce the universe to m/d in order to arrive at atheism though.

In short, you're trying to make atheism include a broader range of beliefs or a methodology of belief. It doesn't. One might be animist and atheist. Someone else might be atheist because an alien told them, "There is no God." You are looking for consistency where none exists.

~Raithere

 

[Adam]

An atheist is not:
- Someone who does not believe in God(s).
- A denial of all supernatural type stuff.

Religions do not necessarily involve gods. An atheist would also not believe in a religion with no gods. Lack of religon, not lack of gods.

 

[TruthSeeker]

tiassa,

My own atheistic experience reduced love to weakness, led to the downfall of my regard for either the state or human rights as an objective necessity, exposed family as a petty farce, trampled couplehood, ridiculed jealousy while elevating it to an art form, leaned on property and possession, and essentially threw out any sense of morality which regards other people as anything other than a target market.

Thanks for your honesty.

But, being that I've been asked to accept on faith that this is not representative of the atheistic experience, I find the anti-identification somewhat worthy of ridicule.

Yers, it is. And I'm happy to see an atheist sees that...

Property is robbery; so say the godless Anarchists. Anyone? Anyone?

Yes, it's true. And I'M an Anarchist.

How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? (Chief Sealth)

That is great...

Xev,

It's our nature as humans to fall in love. Love sucks, though.

Whaaaaaatt!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!
Tell me WHY and I answer you...

Human nature

Haha...
It's NOT human nature to kill, to feel jeaulosy, to steal, etc...

And we wouldn't want that. Frankly, I have been trying to find a logical basis for morality. Perhaps one day I shall. Perhaps I won't.

Try...
LOVE
:bugeye:

Love,
Nelson

 

[Xev]

Nelson:

Yers, it is. And I'm happy to see an atheist sees that...

Tiassa isn't an athiest.

Tell me WHY and I answer you...

It's self evident. Ask Adam, or anyone who has broken up recently. Or ask somone who has 'fallen' for one who is 'out of their leauge'.

Anyways, love sucks. One of those things you learn as you get older.

Haha...
It's NOT human nature to kill, to feel jeaulosy, to steal, etc...

Such emotions exist in every human society I've ever heard of. Human nature.

Try...
LOVE

Love is not logical, and is horridly subjective. I'm looking for an objective morality.

P.S: Tiassa, I would say that XTC's 'Dear God' or the Beastie Boy's 'Fight for Your Right to Party'. is best.

P.P.S: Tool's 'Opiate' (Reference to Marx, of course) would be a good anthem for religion.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Adam
An atheist is not:
- Someone who does not believe in God(s).
- A denial of all supernatural type stuff.

Religions do not necessarily involve gods. An atheist would also not believe in a religion with no gods. Lack of religon, not lack of gods.

Atheism expressly defines a position against the belief in God(s), not against religion.* Religion is a more general position regarding the belief in supernatural powers and is usually meant to include the reverence and worship of such powers in addition to belief in them. While these powers are often regarded as God(s) it is not necessarily so.

Curiously, I could find no term defined as strictly anti-religious vs atheism which is strictly anti-theistic (belief in God(s)). Given common usage and the lack of a specific term one can correctly take the position that atheism is equivalent to anti-religious though that position could be credibly argued depending on one's definition of God(s). However, one cannot claim to be atheist and still believe in God(s).

Therefore an atheist is someone who does not believe in God(s).

Regarding the supernatural: This is a bit more nebulous in scope. It is dependant upon one's definition of natural law. To the apostles surely airplanes, lasers, and cell-phones would be miraculous and thought to be supernatural. We, however, know that these this strictly obey natural laws. Something strictly supernatural, therefore, must be beyond any natural law, known or unknown. I would venture to say that most atheists do not believe in the supernatural in this sense but only in the sense of unknown natural laws. But this is still not part of the definition of atheism and cannot be applied broadly.

In addition one must consider the possibility that there are realms of phenomena for which we cannot define a natural law. This is not to say that the phenomena are supernatural (in the strict sense) but only beyond our capacity to know. For this category of phenomena, once again, I know of no proper term.

~Raithere

*
atheism
\A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.] 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998

 

[TruthSeeker]

Xev,

Tiassa isn't an athiest.

That explains why she can see it while atheists can't...
And why she seems intelligent...

Anyways, love sucks. One of those things you learn as you get older.

*sights...
You like most people still don't know Love...
That's NEED Xev... not Love...

I won't explain. It will take me pages to explain this. So instead, why don't you read this book:
"The Mastery of Love" by Don Miguel Ruiz

You'll like it...

Such emotions exist in every human society I've ever heard of. Human nature.

They are NOT human nature, they are just diseases that we have for a loooooooooooooong time...

Love is not logical, and is horridly subjective. I'm looking for an objective morality.

Who cares Love is not logical? If it were, it would be superficial and destructive. Fortunatly Love is not logical neither rational...

Love,
Nelson

 

[Xev]

That explains why she can see it while atheists can't...
And why she seems intelligent...

"She"?
Tiassa is a man. :bugeye:

Tiassa is also very intelligent - not 'seems'. But I will note the irony of you, of all people, claiming that athiests are stupid.

You like most people still don't know Love...
That's NEED Xev... not Love...

Hardly, Nelson. You want a definition of love?

Love is sacrificing one's own happiness for the happiness of another. Love is making this sacrifice without any acclaim, or without anyone ever caring. Love is rarely returned, and will always take an act of will.

Tiassa claimed that this was a weakness to him once. It is not. In fact, it takes a great amount of strength.

Who cares Love is not logical? If it were, it would be superficial and destructive. Fortunatly Love is not logical neither rational...

I care. Luckily, love can be rationally controlled and supressed.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Sorry tiassa...

Love is sacrificing one's own happiness for the happiness of another. Love is making this sacrifice without any acclaim, or without anyone ever caring. Love is rarely returned, and will always take an act of will.

Nooooo!!!
Read chapter 3 in the very same book! It talks EXACTLY about that!!!!

I care. Luckily, love can be rationally controlled and supressed.

Love COMPLETLY loses It's essence and excellence when is put inside a little bottle...:bugeye:

If you don't know Love, it's not impressive that you don't know God...:bugeye:

Love,
Nelson

 

[Xev]

Nooooo!!!
Read chapter 3 in the very same book! It talks EXACTLY about that!!!!

It's not a bad thing, Nelson.

Love COMPLETLY loses It's essence and excellence when is put inside a little bottle...

We're talking about two different 'loves', aren't we? I'm speaking of the conventional romantic sense.

Which sucks.

If you don't know Love, it's not impressive that you don't know God...

I knew God once. We're not on speaking terms now.

 

[Tiassa]

Raithere

Raithere

The problem here is you are attempting to analyze Atheism as a complete or consistent philosophy. It's not.

Did you miss where I wrote, However, as we cannot ever define a cohesive "atheist" body the way we might delineate a "Christian" or "Socialist" body, the identification of atheism as what it isn't cannot suffice?

Atheism is simply a declaration that one does not believe in God or Gods. It may be a tenet of one's philosophy but it is not, in itself, enough to base a personal philosophy of life upon. It is no more descriptive than simply calling one's self a theist. As is somewhat evident in this forum, and quite evident when you look at history and the world at large, simply defining one self as theist could mean any number of contradictory beliefs, values, morals, etcetera which provide no consistent or logical position that can be labeled simply as Theist.

As I also recall, it is somewhat evident in this forum that atheism is supposed to be a rational conclusion. This sense of rationality, conclusions based on what is available and observable, seems fairly consistent.

Atheists will generally argue on the basis of empirical evidence, or lack thereof. As you point out, this belies an inconsistancy as most atheists do not apply this method across the entire spectrum of their beliefs. However, it is not quite as inconsistent as you suggest. One may be empiricist only to the limits of our perception. Beyond this the field is wide open.

Quite obviously, I won't argue with this.

You ask several questions regarding atheist's beliefs regarding UFO's, spirits, love, property, etc. The problem is, however, that few people who regard themselves as atheists will share beliefs across all of those questions. You'd get similar results asking these questions to Aclausians (people who don't believe in Santa Claus

That's largely my point. Such an observation reminds us that the methodology upon which one bases atheism is not consistent through the life of the atheist. It implies the arbitrariness of the atheist. That is, if atheism is in any way a rational or objective conclusion, it seems that the rationality is based on irrational criteria, and that the objectivity is subjective in scope.

You seem to be striving at a deeper issue though. Your experience with atheism seems to have entailed a strictly mechanistic/deterministic philosophy. I would suggest that it is the m/d philosophy that your arguments address and not atheism. And I would concur with your perceptions of the m/d philosophy as dehumanizing and dispiriting. One need not reduce the universe to m/d in order to arrive at atheism though

Exactly.

See, I'm with you here. But the m/d philosophy seems to be a stance of integrity that results from attempting to hold a consistent perspective. Rather than applying patchwork rationality, one strives for a purely rational stance. True, this is not part of atheism, but in that case the claims to rationality being the basis of one's atheism are undermined by the presence of inconsistently-applied rationality. In terms of your next point:

In short, you're trying to make atheism include a broader range of beliefs or a methodology of belief. It doesn't. One might be animist and atheist. Someone else might be atheist because an alien told them, "There is no God." You are looking for consistency where none exists.

It's not an attempt to make atheism include anything. It's an attempt to identify the limits of the rational as a matter of consistency. So yes, I may be looking for consistency where none exists, but such a condition indicates much about the criteria of one's perspective. I also accept that I'm seeking rationality where none exists.

But given that all we ever hear about atheism is what it's not (belief in gods), I wondered what people thought it was. Especially the atheists who point to the rationality of their decision. What is so advantageous about being "rational" only in response to gods? As I noted to Xev:

Thus, it seems that an atheist rejects God because God has dominion. State and economy also have dominion, but those myths bring immediate rewards--e.g. wealth--whereas God is a posthumous payoff that cannot be confirmed. Love has an immediate reward. Property has a tangible aspect. I find this division very curious.

I would like to think of atheism as something more than a symptom describing rationalized greed. However, I'm perfectly willing to recognize it as such. For that would in one sense characterize the effect I recoil from. Such a connection points back toward the negative aspects of my own atheist experience, and as noted, I have been asked to take on faith that such is not the consistent or necessary result of atheism.

This is fair enough, but the problem I hit there is that the atheist justification that atheism is rational goes out the window as a matter of the integrity of the atheist in terms of the broader paradigm. The rationality of the atheist conclusion comes from a rationality that is both irrational in its limits and in its prescription. Like I said, I find it interesting that an atheist refuses the dominion that has no tangible profit.

I'm only comparing atheism to its justifications, and hoping to figure out how those justifications affect broader life issues. For that process is exactly what I've come to see as a predictable result of atheism.

In the long run, Raithere, I'm perfectly happy to accept atheism as irrational. Maybe in the future in these forums, we can move past the point of the rationality of atheism and start to get into the underlying reasons for the disparity of comparative values. It's not that I feel in any way that a God is required for morality; rather, I feel morality is, in practice, arbitrary. But regardless of one's religion, the judgment of that religion can either be made based on its results or on nothing at all.

The most part of what people tell us about atheism is what it is not. Rational and objective are alleged circumstances of the atheist conclusion. Gods are rejected because such a belief is irrational, as is evident from the repeated expressions of such by atheists in these forums. Why is it that after that point, irrationality is perfectly acceptable?

That's what I find so damned amusing about this subject, to be honest. I have to admit that it would never have occurred to me had I not been asked to take on faith that atheism does not consistently resemble my own experience. In fact, the audacity of that request is the only reason I bother.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Raise a glass, Xev

Xev

By and large, justifying anything according to the subective "human nature" is tenuous.

But of your question, So what?

Well, I partially agree. To the other, there is the contention within these forums that atheism (also denoted as rational and objective) is the natural state. That's all. Really.

Since when were athiests necessarily Objectivists? In any case, the choice to follow the law is made for several reasons:

Belief in the 'justness' of a law
Fear of punishment

So are we back to atheism being as arbitrary an assumption as religion? I hadn't meant to drag us that far back.

It would seem that law is irrational. The criteria for justice are subjective. Fear of punishment seems very rational. Yet what happens when we consider those two together? It would seem that the authority of the law is the mere fact that it is the law. As a side note, I also find it interesting that such a precept is generally rejected in societies alleging to be free.

Power, I suppose. 'Rights' are fairly subjective.

Thank you. I was hoping we could agree on that point.

I don't want to die. Death is eternal. That's what makes life important.

Which is subjective - obviously -

And as you further indicate from here into the next, you're quite obviously onto what I'm after:

But I fail to see your point. This cannot be construed as a condemnation of athiesm in any way, shape or form. To claim such would be to commit the fallacy of 'appeal to negative consequences'.

It's not that one should construe it as a condemnation of atheism. It's just that, on the one hand, if atheism is rational, then said rationality sticks out like a sore thumb; and to the other, well, you did remind me recently to not engage in an atheist/theist debate. And I noted that you were correct in that. And this, for instance, is why.

Help me out, then, please. True or false: The rejection of gods facilitates the freedom of the individual to hold a moral position that reacts not to subjective doctrine, but to the objective state of the event or idea requiring moral consideration.

Frankly, I have been trying to find a logical basis for morality. Perhaps one day I shall. Perhaps I won't.

After a few more drinks, I have a decent chance of doing so.

And that's what's important. There already is the logical basis for the moral structure. I hold that life is about the species, though I'm aware that in one of these posts of James R has presented that exact issue that I have yet to address.

But the short form of it, for the moment, can be summed up in the question, Why would an individual salmon instinctively destroy itself solely to spawn?

The answer is because Life works to perpetuate itself; reproduction is one of the primary purposes of Life. An apple was no more made "for us" than than you are made for the organisms that will consume you in the ground after you're dead (assuming, of course, that you're buried and not cremated).

What is moral, then, can be said to be that which works toward the perpetuation of the species. Exactly what that is, however, cannot be easily determined. To wit, we react with concern toward species whenever we perceive a number of it threatened by natural disaster, warfare, &c. And yes, I realize this is an infinitesimal proportion of the six-billion known members of the human species; that is, the threshold for that reaction occurs even when a particularly low proportion of the species is threatened, damaged, or exscinded. This species-preservation instinct presents an interesting juxtaposition to the observation that the occasional thinning of the herd can be to a species' advantage (e.g. selection). Thus, there exists at least the possibility that the occasional extermination of a large number of humans may, in fact, be said to be moral. There's the obvious problem with determining morality that way, but recognizing that problem only begs the question of the logical basis for morality.

Me? I'll have another rip, then probably do some of my own drinking on it.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Whoops ... Xev ... one more

Xev:

Tiassa, I would say that XTC's 'Dear God' or the Beastie Boy's 'Fight for Your Right to Party'. is best.

Nor will I argue with that point. However, it doesn't help matters any

That's why the poll is limited to those few odd songs. What's best among them? It's sort of a Zen joke to me, is all. For instance, the Malmsteen/Rainbow vote ... I haven't voted yet, so the Malmsteen vote cracks me up on a level that would require its own enormous, useless topic to describe.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Xev]

Tiassa:

Well, I partially agree. To the other, there is the contention within these forums that atheism (also denoted as rational and objective) is the natural state. That's all. Really

I wonder - I might have been wrong in declaring athiesm the 'natural state'. It feels so to me, however.....

I may just have been one of Calvin's sinners

Born bad
Na-a-turallly
I was just booorn
Naturally booorn
Booorn bad

Erm, right.

So are we back to atheism being as arbitrary an assumption as religion? I hadn't meant to drag us that far back.

Not at all. The choice to be logical is arbitrary, although there are benefits to rationality....

In that sense, athiesm is as arbitrary as religion. But only in that sense.

It's not that one should construe it as a condemnation of atheism. It's just that, on the one hand, if atheism is rational, then said rationality sticks out like a sore thumb;

To a degree. To a degree love is rational - but only to a degree.

For instance, suppose I fall in love with somone who is, well, unavailable. For the thought experiment, it dosen't matter how, but in any case they are unlikely to reciprocate.

Now, I can point to that person's good qualities and say: "See? My falling in love is perfectly natural, he is smart and attractive and yadda yadda yadda" until you hit me with a mackrel to make me shut up.

However, my falling in love has made me miserable. Not very rational....

So love is not really rational at all. Now, I am an athiest in a large part because I believe that logic is desirable - I wish to behave logically.

But here I am, acting illogically. You pointed out the contradiction - or rather, I made this up to highlight it.

The dilemna is resolved when I accept that I cannot be logical all the time. I can, however, fight a partial battle against this irrationality.

Where I choose to draw my battle lines might be considered arbitrary.

Does this resolve the dispute? I accept the irrational, I simply don't accept it into my conception of God.

Which is why, for all my talk of mackrels and being a 'militant athiest', I don't look down on those who believe.

True or false: The rejection of gods facilitates the freedom of the individual to hold a moral position that reacts not to subjective doctrine, but to the objective state of the event or idea requiring moral consideration.

I am not sure if objective moral principles exist. I'm sorry, but I can't answer yes or no.

I would like to think of atheism as something more than a symptom describing rationalized greed. However, I'm perfectly willing to recognize it as such. For that would in one sense characterize the effect I recoil from. Such a connection points back toward the negative aspects of my own atheist experience, and as noted, I have been asked to take on faith that such is not the consistent or necessary result of atheism.

You need not take it on faith, however....some 70% of Americans are nominal Christians. Tony1 (is he American?) is, well, he's Tony1. Am I to conclude that all Christians are like Tony?

If that was an argument against athiesm, however, you would be commiting the fallacy of 'appeal to negative consequences'.

I am curious as to where greed comes in.

This is fair enough, but the problem I hit there is that the atheist justification that atheism is rational goes out the window as a matter of the integrity of the atheist in terms of the broader paradigm. The rationality of the atheist conclusion comes from a rationality that is both irrational in its limits and in its prescription. Like I said, I find it interesting that an atheist refuses the dominion that has no tangible profit.

Not really. Atheist's veiws of God live on a placid island of rationality in the midst of the black sea of the irrational.

The perception is humbling, but in no way negates athiesm or the argument from rationality.