The Limitations of Atheism.

Bowser · Dec 2, 2000

By definition, you can't go very far with it:

Atheism - "The doctrine that there is no God"

On the other hand, the liberal definition of Christianity is much more forgiving:
http://www.internetdynamics.com/pub/vc/bibles.html

------------------
It's all very large.

Emerald · Dec 2, 2000

Bowser,

According to Dan Barker, atheist and freethinker, atheism is merely the lack of theism - the absence of belief in a god, or gods, whether it is due to a critical rejection of theistic assertions, to unfamiliarity with the subject (as with a baby, or with a nontheistic culture), or to noncommittal agnostic/skeptic principles.

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

ilgwamh · Dec 2, 2000

<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">

Here is a chapter from a short book I am writing for my english composition class. It talks about science when given theism versus atheism. Let me know of what you think.

Of Molecules and Men


Chapter 3

This chapter may get uncomfortably technical for the lay person. I am going to be comparing and contrasting two different views of our universe. The view that God is manning the cosmic helm with the view that He is not. The objective is to discuss the purpose and meaning of life in various frameworks. We will discuss whether there really is such a thing as good and bad and right or wrong, as opposed to the view that the interactions that transpire in our universe are nothing more than chemical and physical reactions or vibrating strings if you will.

Let's start with a robbery-homicide. A person shoots and kills another person for their jacket and wallet. Someone who commits a heinous act of that kind is generally considered to be the basest negativity of the human race. This person committed a horrible and atrocious crime as the newspapers would say, but how horrible was it? From a standpoint in the evolutionary religion one could "justify" this person's actions as survival of the fittest. The barbarous perpetrator of this inhuman crime may have been uncomfortably chilled due to cold weather and ingeniously adapted to their surroundings by stealing a jacket. The action was neither bad nor good. Just mother nature playing out its inevitable course. One more step up the evolutionary ladder. There are many different ways one can view this crime. Here is another: this person was shot with a gun just as a paper target gets shot in the shooting range. What is the fundamental difference between the two? We may say one is alive and one is not but both are a vast collection of atoms, molecules, and forces at work. A collection of atoms (a bullet) is acted upon by a force (the gun's hammer) and reacts with another object (pierces human flesh or a piece of paper). In order to say its wrong to kill a complex compilation of star dust that has the ability to process information and interact willfully with its surroundings, one must believe that human life is special which requires the existence of a transcendental creator.

Robert S. Jones in his book, Physics for the Rest of Us, has said "The whole incredible big bang story with its climactic human ending is merely the result of physical and chemical processes that are completely random, accidental, and meaningless. We may think we're pretty good and important, but there is absolutely nothing in the blind, meaningless events to suggest the slightest purpose, value, or significance in our existence. If we should be so foolish as to annihilate ourselves in an atomic holocaust or through the strangling pollution of the earth, it will make not the least difference in the scheme of things. The planets, stars, and galaxies will continue on their cosmic schedules, completely oblivious to our passing. So much for human significance." The sun is 93 million miles away from the earth. It has a diameter of 865,000 miles. Millions and millions of tons of the sun's material is converted into nuclear energy every day. The sun is just one of the billions of stars in our Galaxy which measures 80,000 light years across. One light year is 6,000,000,000,000. miles. Multiply that number times 80,000 and you get the length of the distance it would take to traverse our galaxy. Yet our galaxy, with its enormous million solar mass black hole in its center, is just one of billions of galaxies all containing billions of stars. The universe is enormous. The sheer size of it humbles and intimidates us. What's the significance of one measly 80 kilogram person being murdered for their wallet and jacket? A few kids got killed during the Columbine tragedy and the press makes a big deal about it. What's all the fuss about? I don't see the press printing eulogies for all the stars that are being engulfed by neighboring black holes.

A Godless framework views the universe as vibrating strings, chemical reactions and physical processes. Human beings and planets and stars are nothing but energy. Einstein's famous equation (e= mc^2) tells us that energy and mass are interchangeable. Mass is simply a form of energy. This renders human life, moral and social values, thoughts, actions and deeds pointlessly tedious. The point I am trying to get across is that without God the universe is meaningless. Everything that takes place is merely a chemical or physical reaction. There is no such thing as good or bad. Human life is not important. It is merely a complex compilation of atoms, molecules, and fundamental forces that can receive and process information. In that world any attempt at morality is futile. Everything would be subject to our own biased and prejudiced motivations. Its equivalent to, "I think this chemical reaction is evil while this one is not. The physical processes that transpired and caused the death or my newborn baby were morally bad while the ones that cause fruit to grow are not." Picking and choosing. A blind person marveling over the beauty of the Sistine Chapel. Without a personal creator, the universe is meaningless, pointless and oppressive. With a personal creator the picture becomes much brighter. Because of the Bible we know human life has immense value and certain actions are reprehensible and certain are rewardable. Humans were the climax of God's creative week. The original Hebrew in the creation account tells us that we, along with a few soulish creatures created on the 5th day, are radically different from the rest of creation. God made us in his image. We have souls and are much more valuable than any other aspect of inanimate creation.

I want to address one more thing in this chapter. Namely, the transcendental argument of God's existence. It goes slightly deeper than the previously mentioned details and it makes a very persuasive argument for the existence of God.

Let's start with something simple. Take the basic addition of 2+2 for example. We all know the sum of those two numbers equals four but why? Let's compare and contrast two different thoughts.

1. 2+2=4

2. 2+2=5

One of these thoughts we would obviously conclude is wrong but the problem is that both of these thoughts were just chemical reactions in our brain. A set of chemical reactions took place in our brain that produced the first thought while another set produced the second thought. How can a chemical reaction that takes place be wrong? It is neither wrong nor right. It is merely a chemical reaction. For the record, we do know 2+2=4. It is an analytical proposition based upon the definitions of the words used.

I know this is slightly hard to follow but it should become clear. Dr. Douglas Wilson appealed to the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence in his debate with Theodore Drange. I will retell, paraphrase and quote from the debate transcripts in the following four paragraphs in hopes of making this a little clearer to the lay person.

It was Wilson's contention that in agreeing to debate God's existence with him, Drange conceded the debate. Why was that? Well, Drange was defending the atheistic world view that "requires, at the ultimate level, mindlessness or absence of intelligence. No one is manning the cosmic helm. If there were an ultimate mind, or ultimate intelligence, that ultimate mind would have to be called God." The problem is that given an atheistic philosophy Drange must come up with a source for his epistemology. In order to debate he must first provide us with the reason he thinks his thoughts are valid. He must explain how he knows his thoughts correspond to reality. Wilson argues that in order to debate God's existence you assume His existence by appealing to the authority of reason. "If the universe is what the atheist claims, then how can we account for the emergence of a non-material and authoritative rationality? . . . If the universe is nothing more than time and chance acting on matter, then this universal process must include our brains. If this includes our brains, then we have no reason for believing our thoughts to be anything other than brain gas -- intracranial epiphenomena. The brain secretes thoughts the same way the liver secretes bile. But if this is the case, then we have no reason for supposing that our thoughts are even true, and hence no reason for believing that we even have any brains. And this means we have no basis for assuming that we are assuming, no reason to think we are thinking. The position is internally contradictory, and thereby self-refuting."



Wilson also appealed to a very good analogy that makes this tough meat easier to chew. While Wilson and Drange are debating the existence of God we may conclude, based upon our observations, that one is winning the debate or one is losing, but as Wilson says, "If I were a bottle of Pepsi which someone had violently agitated, and Dr. Drange were a bottle of Coke, equally shaken up, and we were placed on a table side by side, it would not occur to any accidental spectator to ask which bottle of soda was winning the debate. The spectators would not even describe the proceedings as a debate, however entertaining it might happen to be. The bottles would not be debating; they would be fizzing. All we have on the table are certain chemical reactions, neither true nor false. They just are." 



Wilson goes on to say, "The atheist has to explain, on his assumption, what the essential difference is between the thoughts in his brain and any other chemical reaction. Why are some chemical reactions just there, neither true nor false, like baking soda and vinegar, while other chemical reactions can be categorized as true or false? On what basis can we say that atheist fizzings correspond to the external world while Christian fizzings do not?"



There you have it. The Transcendental Argument for God's existence in a nutshell. God has given us the ability to reason and some use that ability to deny him. The main idea of that argument is that when you deny God you are cutting off the branch you are sitting on. I realize this chapter may have been tough to follow but its main purpose was to show that without God the universe loses all of its value. Human life loses its importance. On a side note, I do not want to draw any unwarranted criticism from someone misunderstanding what I have said in this chapter. I did not say atheists are immoral people. I am saying that from an intellectual point of view, moral values, when given an atheistic framework, are trivial and unimportant whereas in a theistic philosophy, the Christian faith for example, they are the apex of civilization.



You would be hard pressed to find a person without moral values. Even an ingenious scientist, who views the world as nothing more than chemical and physical processes at work, will cry at the loss of parent, a child, or a close friend. The scientist may even view their own crying as nothing more than the result of a cause and effect relationship. A set of chemical and physical reactions that was processed by their brain caused another set of reactions to take place in their brain that resulted in the formation of dihydrogen monoxide. Gravity then took over and caused this effect to stream from their eyes. Despite what they may think, they are in pain and crying. They need to be comforted as we all do in tough situations because some chemical and physical reactions do have value. Some cause joy and some cause pain. Love is much more than a chemical reaction in the brain and all actions not invoked by love are detrimental. Deep down inside most of us seem to know this and the reason why is made clear in the Bible. Romans chapter 2 teaches that God's laws are written on our hearts. Our conscience testifies and bears witness to what is good. C.S Lewis' classic, Mere Christianity, talks about the law of human behavior in the opening chapters. "These, then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pg. 21) 



Chapter Three Sources

1. The Niv Study Bible

2. Physics For the Rest of Us, by Robert S. Jones.

3. Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis

4. The Drange-Wilson debate transcripts found on the worldwide web at infidels.org More specifically: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/douglas_wilson/drange-wilson/

Peace,

Vinnie
</body>
</html>

------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Bowser · Dec 2, 2000

ilgwamh,

That was very good. I enjoyed it, and I thank you for sharing it. When you are finished, maybe you can post the whole text here? I will read it.

------------------
It's all very large.

Emerald · Dec 2, 2000

Without a personal creator, the universe is meaningless, pointless and oppressive. With a personal creator the picture becomes much brighter.

ilgwamh,

So what you're saying then, is that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him?

Can you really read the bible and not feel that under the dictatorship of the OT God, the universe is meaningless, pointless and oppressive? It seems to me that, according to the bible, the whole point of our existence is to glorify our egotistical, insanely jealous, sadistic and oppressive creator. I call it "brown-nosing" - hardly meaningful from my perspective.

Because of the Bible we know human life has immense value and certain actions are reprehensible and certain are rewardable.

Really? There are many passages in the bible that would contradict the idea that human life has immense value. Let me know if you'd like me to list a few of them for you.

As for actions that are considered by the OT God to be reprehensible, those seem to be limited to such behaviors as worshipping other gods, making graven or molten images, taking the Lord's name in vain, working on the sabbath, having sex outside of marriage (if you happen to be female), boiling a goat in its mother's milk - stuff like that. Killing only seems to be wrong if God doesn't command it (which he does often enough in the OT to invalidate the idea that he thinks that human life is of "immense value").

The only actions considered to be rewardable are those that demonstrate blind obedience and absolute loyalty to this monster of the OT. Such actions might include rape, human sacrifice or genocide, depending on God's mood on a particular day.

What I don't understand is how anyone who is reasonably literate can read the bible and not see these things? If you have read the bible, you must have read the passages to which I am alluding. If this is in fact the case, then how can you possibly consider the god described therein worthy of the adulation he demands? Is it only out of fear of eternal damnation that you award this heavenly tyrant your undying allegiance and blind devotion? If so, I assert that this is intellectual dishonesty on your part. If there is an omniscient God, would he not see through this and condemn you anyway?

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

synaesthesia · Dec 3, 2000

Ok... Where to begin?

First, I think I should address the most obvious fallacy. (Both Bowser and ilgwamh make this mistake.)

Atheism is NOT "The doctrine that there is no God." If you believe that then there is no way that any sort of rational debate can occur between theists and atheists. I don't know how many times this needs to be reiterated before it gets through.

Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God. Because there are many different philosophical standpoints under the broad classification of “Atheism”, to attack all of atheism, you need to come up with arguments which apply to any standpoint which does not involve a belief in any deity Broadly speaking, even an agnostic can be an atheist.

Now that we have dealt with that, I would like to address some points in ilgwamh’s post.
----
ilgwamh:
“From a standpoint in the evolutionary religion one could "justify" this person's actions as survival of the fittest.”
----

I frequently hear people refer to the “evolutionary religion”. What exactly this is escapes me. What ilgwamh refers to in this passage is “Spencerism” or more commonly (and less accurately) “Social Darwinism”. He speaks of this as though it is a natural consequence of atheism. The fact is, it is not even the point of view taken by most people who believe in evolution. It is merely a misapplication of the theory of natural selection.

----
ilgwamh:
“There are many different ways one can view this crime. Here is another: this person was shot with a gun just as a paper target gets shot in the shooting range. What is the fundamental difference between the two? We may say one is alive and one is not but both are a vast collection of atoms, molecules, and forces at work. A collection of atoms (a bullet) is acted upon by a force (the gun's hammer) and reacts with another object (pierces human flesh or a piece of paper). In order to say its wrong to kill a complex compilation of star dust that has the ability to process information and interact willfully with its surroundings, one must believe that human life is special which requires the existence of a transcendental creator.”
----

Does logical cohesiveness count in english composition class? If so, I would suggest that you revise this statement.

Human flesh and paper are both composed of atoms. If a person’s world view does not go beyond the existence of atoms, then what you said makes sense. However, the difference between a human an a piece of paper is not either a matter of either atoms or souls. That bifurcation grossly misrepresents the materialist standpoint. Yes, I believe that the world is composed of atoms etc. Yes, both humans and paper targets are made of atoms. I recognize, however, that the human being has a mind. The human being is alive. You don’t have to believe that we are supernatural creatures to believe that it is wrong to kill. Morality can and does have a material basis.

----
“I don't see the press printing eulogies for all the stars that are being engulfed by neighboring black holes.”
----

Of course not. Doesn’t that tell you that non-theists make a distinction between humans and inanimate matter? Atheists place value on lives, not on souls.

----
“A Godless framework views the universe as vibrating strings, chemical reactions and physical processes. Human beings and planets and stars are nothing but energy.”
----

There is no discernable purpose to the universe. That does not mean our lives cannot have meaning. Quite the contrary, it is a natural human instinct to desire meaning. Again, there is your bifurcation at work. Either the entire universe is centered on man or human lives have no meaning. That is anthropocentric nonsense.

----
“Einstein's famous equation (e= mc^2) tells us that energy and mass are interchangeable. Mass is simply a form of energy. This renders human life, moral and social values, thoughts, actions and deeds pointlessly tedious.”
----

You should become a physicist. You are absolutely brilliant. How did you do it? How did you come to the conclusion that because of special relativity, human life is tedious? This is all news to me. I would have been under the impression that the more we know about the universe, the more interesting it becomes. We now know that the more we know about the universe, the LESS interesting it becomes. Ignorance is bliss!

----
“The point I am trying to get across is that without God the universe is meaningless. Everything that takes place is merely a chemical of physical reaction. There is no such thing as good or bad. Human life is not important. It is merely a complex compilation of atoms, molecules, and fundamental forces that can receive and process information. In that world any attempt at morality is futile. Everything would be subject to our own biased and prejudiced motivations. Its equivalent to, "I think this chemical reaction is evil while this one is not. The physical processes that transpired and caused the death or my newborn baby were morally bad while the ones that cause fruit to grow are not."”
----

Perhaps there is a REASON for the laws we have in society. You, after all, accept it on faith. For those of us who do not have the privilege of infallible guidance, some hard questions have had to been asked. We have to examine our conscience and ask ”why?” WHY we believe that one thing is immoral and another is moral. We do not appeal to an authority, we must reson for ourselves.

----
“Picking and choosing. A blind person marveling over the beauty of the Sistine Chapel.”
----

It’s not just picking and choosing. It’s asking “why”?

----
“Without a personal creator, the universe is meaningless, pointless and oppressive. With a personal creator the picture becomes much brighter. Because of the Bible we know human life has immense value and certain actions are reprehensible and certain are rewardable. Humans were the climax of God's creative week. The original Hebrew in the creation account tells us that we, along with a few soulish creatures created on the 5th day, are radically different from the rest of creation. God made us in his image. We have souls and are much more valuable than any other aspect of inanimate creation.”
----

In the bible
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/godswrathquiz.html

Well, from the bible, I wouldn’t know that human life is so precious.

Atheism implies amorality and despair? Meaning can and is found within the context of our own lives. Our meaning, for an example, may be found in building a better future, or working for your children. In the scheme of things, it's not going to count for much. The galaxies will continue to collide, the suns will continue to burn. Meaningfulness is possible without being so presumptuous as to think ourselves the center of the universe.

----
"(the atheistic view) requires, at the ultimate level, mindlessness or absence of intelligence. No one is manning the cosmic helm. If there were an ultimate mind, or ultimate intelligence, that ultimate mind would have to be called God."”
----

I do not pretend to have the answers to the answers to the origins of the universe. I will not exclude the possibility that a God created the universe but I DO NOT KNOW.

----
“The problem is that given an atheistic philosophy Drange must come up with a source for his epistemology. In order to debate he must first provide us with the reason he thinks his thoughts are valid. He must explain how he knows his thoughts correspond to reality. Wilson argues that in order to debate God's existence you assume His existence by appealing to the authority of reason. "If the universe is what the atheist claims, then how can we account for the emergence of a non-material and authoritative rationality?”
----

That we live in an orderly universe can be experimentally ascertained. The transcendental argument simply asserts that order can only be attributed to the functioning of a mind. (Namely that of God.) It takes this as a priori knowledge. Given this assumption, the arguments based on it are logical. The assumption is, however, unfounded. No one, not me, not you, can explain exactly why the universe is orderly.

You may retort by claiming that you do. “God is the source of order.” You are arguing that the existence of reason is due to God, who is knowable because of the existence of reason. A non-contingent being cannot (order) be adduced to prove a non-contingent being (God).

“If Johnny is home, regardless of whether or not the lights are on, I cannot argue that Johnny is or isn’t home based upon the facts that the lights are off.”

----
“ . . . If the universe is nothing more than time and chance acting on matter, then this universal process must include our brains. If this includes our brains, then we have no reason for believing our thoughts to be anything other than brain gas -- intracranial epiphenomena.”
----

This is nonsense due simply to the fact that we KNOW our brains work logically from experience. We have observed that we can distinguish one object from two, that we can reason and *verify* our reasoning. Those things which are known only by chance are on the subatomic level. For practical purposes we live in an orderly universe which can be understood to some degree by humans.

----
“He must explain how he knows his thoughts correspond to reality."
----

Discernable order in the universe can be verified through experience. Experience can be gained by an organism through electrochemical means. (as proved by countless animal research projects and learning computer “neural networks”)

Ultimately, we don’t KNOW that our thoughts correspond with reality. We have to assume that they do, as do you. For all you and I know, we are brains in jars. However, repeated observation leads us to believe that we live in a perceptible and orderly universe.

----
“The brain secretes thoughts the same way the liver secretes bile. But if this is the case, then we have no reason for supposing that our thoughts are even true, and hence no reason for believing that we even have any brains. And this means we have no basis for assuming that we are assuming, no reason to think we are thinking. The position is internally contradictory, and thereby self-refuting."”
----

Surely you can differentiate the expulsion of bile from the gall bladder from the workings of the brain? There are massive differences, mainly the orderly structure of the neurons which permits it to do the incredible things that it does. It is neither simply secretion nor “fizzing”.

Empirical observation does not mean absolute truth. I agree with you one hundred percent. You go on to reason that because there is no absolute truth we “have no basis for assuming that we are assuming, no reason to think we are thinking.” Yes, we do have a basis. Empirical observation. Is it absolute truth? No. It is, however, as close to the truth as we can get. Again, we have to avoid bifurcation. (eg. either we know absolute truth or there is no truth.) Our world is known to us in shades of grey.

----
“On what basis can we say that atheist fizzings correspond to the external world while Christian fizzings do not?”
----

This argument relies on the assumption that if there is no absolute truth, there is no such thing as reason. A raw assertion backed by no logical arguments.

----
“There you have it. The Transcendental Argument for God's existence in a nutshell. God has given us the ability to reason and some use that ability to deny him. The main idea of that argument is that when you deny God you are cutting off the branch you are sitting on.”
----

This is the transcendental argument: Asserting that God has given us the ability to reason and stating the implications of such as thing as though they were fact.

This is one of the weakest arguments for God. It asserts that it is self supported while (a ”straw man” conception of) atheism is self defeating.

----
“I realize this chapter may have been tough to follow but its main purpose was to show that without God the universe loses all of its value. Human life loses its importance.”
----

With atheism, I will concede, the human soul looses it’s value because it is not assumed to exist. You are wrong in that human life might be said to have even more value because this is the only chance at life we get.

----
“On a side note, I do not want to draw any unwarranted criticism from someone misunderstanding what I have said in this chapter. I did not say atheists are immoral people. I am saying that from an intellectual point of view, moral values, when given an atheistic framework, are trivial and unimportant whereas in a theistic philosophy, the Christian faith for example, they are the apex of civilization.”
----

Christians are not better then atheists, I’ll agree. All you have shown is that you don’t really understand philosophical atheism and the moral frameworks which can be built in the absence of any god.

----
“You would be hard pressed to find a person without moral values. Even an ingenious scientist, who views the world as nothing more than chemical and physical processes at work, will cry at the loss of parent, a child, or a close friend.The scientist may even view their own crying as nothing more than the result of a cause and effect relationship. A set of chemical and physical reactions that was processed by their brain caused another set of reactions to take place in their brain that resulted in the formation of dihydrogen monoxide.”
----

A technical note: The brain does not directly control the synthesis of chemicals. Furthermore, the water in your tears isn’t produced by the body, you drink it in.

----
“Gravity then took over and caused this effect to stream from their eyes. Despite what they may think, they are in pain and crying. They need to be comforted as we all do in tough situations because some chemical and physical reactions do have value. Some cause joy and some cause pain. Love is much more than a chemical reaction in the brain and all actions not invoked by love are detrimental.”
----

Do you not agree that music is simply the vibrations of air? So to is love the workings of neurons. Of course music involves order as does the brain. Music isn’t “simply” vibrations. Love is not “only” chemical reactions. That does not mean you need ghosts to cause music, or God to cause love.

Secondly, many actions performed out of any intent can cause good or bad results. I can mean perfectly well by giving my baby alcohol to calm it down but it may result in the child’s death. The intent of an action does not directly determine the nature of the results.

----
“Deep down inside most of us seem to know this...”
----

Rephrased: Deep down, you know I’m right.

----
“...and the reason why is made clear in the Bible. Romans chapter 2 teaches that God's laws are written on our hearts. Our conscience testifies and bears witness to what is good. C.S Lewis' classic, Mere Christianity, talks about the law of human behavior in the opening chapters. "These, then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pg. 21) “
----

Not everyone thinks or feels to be immoral that the bible says is immoral.

Because there is order which is knowable to our minds, does *not* mean that we can conclude that this order comes from a mind. Ultimately to believe that order originates in a divine mind requires an act of faith. Faith is a conviction which stretches past the bounds of what we know. If we have evidence, what need is there for Faith?

With faith, how can we know when we have erred if our correctness is assumed?

All we really know is that the universe appears orderly. If it be an inherent quality of existence or the act of an intelligent being, we can only imagine. (See John’s home analogy above.) How easy it is to imagine the world as we want it to be... How naturally one can conceive of countless superlative explinations for the universe and how we, as a species, enjoy it!

Regards,
Synaesthesia
“One man's hoax is another man's salvation.”
(edited for clarification)

[This message has been edited by synaesthesia (edited December 04, 2000).]

Bowser · Dec 4, 2000

"Atheism is NOT 'The doctrine that there is no God.' If you believe that then there is no way that any sort of rational debate can occur between theists and atheists. I don't know how many times this needs to be reiterated before it gets through."

Look, Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. You can't smudge the lines here.

"Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God."

Here's the definition in my dictionary for the words "Atheist" and "Atheism" : "One who denies the existence of God."

"Because there are many different philosophical standpoints under the broad classification of “Atheism”, to attack all of atheism, you need to come up with arguments which apply to any standpoint which does not involve a belief in any deity Broadly speaking, even agnosticism is a form of atheism."

The definition is very clear: Atheist: "There is no god." Agnostic: "The question is too large."

Now, you are either certain of the answer or you are not certain. If you believe that God or the answer to the question of God is too large for human understanding, then you are an Agnostic; but if you believe that god does not exist, then you are an Atheist. I can see the possibility of many variations of belief under the broad definition of Agnosticism, but Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, and the atheist is confined by that belief. An Atheist can't be doubtfull or uncertain about his ability to determine the existence of God. If you have any doubts about the existence of god, you are not an Atheist. If the question is beyond your ability to answer, then you are not an Atheist.

In short, an attack on Atheism is an attack on the belief that God does not exist.

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited December 03, 2000).]

synaesthesia · Dec 4, 2000

----
“Here's the definition in my dictionary for the words "Atheist" and "Atheism" : "One who denies the existence of God."
...
The definition is very clear: Atheist: "There is no god." Agnostic: "The question is too large." “
----

Your dictionary defines atheism very narrowly.

Let me quote atheism.about.com:

“Atheism: 'A' meaning "without" and 'theism' meaning "belief in god(s)". Hence, Atheism: without belief in gods. This is the basic definition of atheism. An atheist is someone who has no beliefs in any gods. Note that this is not the same as belief that some or all gods do not exist. The basic definition of atheism is a lack of belief. It is not a religion. It is not a belief system. It makes no positive assertions about anything. It only deals with a person's belief, or specifically lack of belief, in the existence of gods.

There are some classifications of atheism that might be useful as well. What we just described is sometimes refereed to as "weak" atheism. "Strong" atheism is the disbelief in some or all gods as opposed to simply lacking a belief in gods. That is, belief that some or all gods do not exist. However, the lack of belief in gods is still the basic definition of atheism and includes strong atheism as a subset.”

As to agnosticism:

“Whereas atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge.

'A' meaning "without" and 'gnosis' meaning "knowledge". Hence, Agnosticism: without knowledge. Specifically without knowledge of gods. An agnostic is a person who does not claim [absolute] knowledge of the existence of god(s). Agnosticism can be classified in a similar manner to atheism. "Weak" agnosticism is not knowing or having knowledge about god(s). It is a statement about personal knowledge. The weak agnostic may not know for sure whether god(s) exist but does not preclude that such knowledge can be obtained. "Strong" agnosticism is believing that knowledge about god(s) is not possible. This is a statement about the possibility of knowledge. A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to know for sure whether god(s) exist.

Since atheism deals with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge they are independent concepts. Hence it is possible to be an agnostic and an atheist. One can have no beliefs in gods and also not know for sure whether gods exist. Note that it is also possible to be an agnostic and a theist.”

“Now, you are either certain of the answer or you are not certain. If you believe that God or the answer to the question of God is too large for human understanding, then you are an Agnostic; but if you believe that god does not exist, then you are an Atheist. I can see the possibility of many variations of belief under the broad definition of Agnosticism, but Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, and the atheist is confined by that belief. An Atheist can't be doubtfull or uncertain about his ability to determine the existence of God. If you have any doubts about the existence of god, you are not an Atheist. If the question is beyond your ability to answer, then you are not an Atheist.

In short, an attack on Atheism is an attack on the belief that God does not exist.”

You mean an attack on “strong” atheism. Using the term atheist as if it meant only strong atheists isn’t very sensible if the majority to atheists aren’t even strong atheists!

Regards,
Synaesthesia

ilgwamh · Dec 4, 2000

<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
"Ok... Where to begin?"

Maybe in the beginning. That's where God did. See Genesis one. 

"First, I think I should address the most obvious fallacy. (Both Bowser and ilgwamh make this mistake.) 

Atheism is NOT "The doctrine that there is no God." If you believe that then there is no way that any sort of rational debate can occur between theists and atheists. I don't know how many times this needs to be reiterated before it gets through."

I sincerely apologize for not taking your word on it. My skeptical nature caused me to crack open (rather, click open) the dictionary. After four seconds of consulting with a friend of Webster, I found this:

Atheism (noun). 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God (capital "G" by the way). [From Greek Atheos, without a God]

I guess atheism is similar to Christianity, both having different denominations of themselves. 

 "Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God."

What is the difference between the two definitions? Is it just not a categorical statement of the nonexistence of God? Is it, I lack theism but I am not totally sure God doesn't exist because I realize the implications of Big Bang Cosmology and the futility of my own reasoning power? 

"Because there are many different philosophical standpoints under the broad classification of "Atheism", to attack all of atheism, you need to come up with arguments which apply to any standpoint which does not involve a belief in any deity Broadly speaking, even agnosticism is a form of atheism. "

That's very convenient. In other words, atheism means I can worm myself away from God by any means my preconceived notions and personal biases deem convenient. So, in order to criticize atheism and build up the case for theism one must refute solipsism, agnosticism, satinism, synaesthesiaism, et cetera. No weak spot that can hit all of atheism head on? Christianity has one. "If Christ has not been raised..." The Dragon Smaug in the Hobbit didn't think he had any weakspots either. But one little arrow did the trick. 

 


ilgwamh: 
"From a standpoint in the evolutionary religion one could "justify" this person's actions as survival of the fittest." 
---- 

I frequently hear people refer to the "evolutionary religion". What exactly this is escapes me. What ilgwamh refers to in this passage is "Spencerism" or more commonly (and less accurately) "Social Darwinism". He speaks of this as though it is a natural consequence of atheism. The fact is, it is not even the point of view taken by most people who believe in evolution. It is merely a misapplication of the theory of natural selection. 



I am sorry you don't appreciate the art of dramatization. Sit and read encyclopedias and dictionaries for hours on end if its your cup of tea.

---- 
ilgwamh: 
"There are many different ways one can view this crime. Here is another: this person was shot with a gun just as a paper target gets shot in the shooting range. What is the fundamental difference between the two? We may say one is alive and one is not but both are a vast collection of atoms, molecules, and forces at work. A collection of atoms (a bullet) is acted upon by a force (the gun's hammer) and reacts with another object (pierces human flesh or a piece of paper). In order to say its wrong to kill a complex compilation of star dust that has the ability to process information and interact willfully with its surroundings, one must believe that human life is special which requires the existence of a transcendental creator." 
---- 

Does logical cohesiveness count in english composition class? If so, I would suggest that you revise this statement. 

"Human flesh and paper are both composed of atoms. If a person's world view does not go beyond the existence of atoms, then what you said makes sense. "



How exactly does your denomination of atheism, solipsism or whatever it is that you believe, or rather, lack belief in, transcend the material world? The atheist world view seems to be driven by the laws of physics. Show me how you arrive at moral values given a lack of theism. Show me how some chemical reactions are bad while others are good.



"However, the difference between a human an a piece of paper is not either a matter of either atoms or souls. That bifurcation grossly misrepresents the materialist standpoint. Yes, I believe that the world is composed of atoms etc. Yes, both humans and paper targets are made of atoms. I recognize, however, that the human being has a mind. The human being is alive. You don't have to believe that we are supernatural creatures to believe that it is wrong to kill. Morality can and does have a material basis. "

So what your saying is because the flesh knows a force (the bullet) is acting upon it, whereas the paper doesn't, it is morally bad? Well, why? If that is what your saying substantiate it. What exactly does being alive have to do with morality. I do not see the corollary. In fact, I don't know what morality is. Enlighten me. Say something along the lines of, "I know it is infinitely wrong to murder a human being because with my infinite knowledge I posit it to be infinitely so." That wouldn't be a smart move on your part though, because you would then be God and that would cause problems for your philosophy. Simply define morality, good, bad, right, wrong, and show me where it fits into the scheme of things. I don't want your opinion. Leave the metaphysics at the door. I want scientific definitions. You know, definitions that have meaning in our universe.

---- 
"I don't see the press printing eulogies for all the stars that are being engulfed by neighboring black holes." 
---- 

Of course not. Doesn't that tell you that non-theists make a distinction between humans and inanimate matter? Atheists place value on lives, not on souls. 

I would think so. On what basis do atheists place values on lives?

---- 
"A Godless framework views the universe as vibrating strings, chemical reactions and physical processes. Human beings and planets and stars are nothing but energy." 
---- 

There is no discernable purpose to the universe. That does not mean our lives cannot have meaning. Quite the contrary, it is a natural human instinct to desire meaning. Again, there is your bifurcation at work. Either the entire universe is centered on man or human lives have no meaning. That is anthropocentric nonsense. 

I partially agree with that to a certain extent. The anthropic principle seems to be gaining ground. Maybe the earth is the center of the universe after all.

---- 
"Einstein's famous equation (e= mc^2) tells us that energy and mass are interchangeable. Mass is simply a form of energy. This renders human life, moral and social values, thoughts, actions and deeds pointlessly tedious." 
---- 

You should become a physicist. You are absolutely brilliant. How did you do it? How did you come to the conclusion that because of special relativity, human life is tedious?

If you knew tensor calculus I could explain it to you.



---- 
"The point I am trying to get across is that without God the universe is meaningless. Everything that takes place is merely a chemical of physical reaction. There is no such thing as good or bad. Human life is not important. It is merely a complex compilation of atoms, molecules, and fundamental forces that can receive and process information. In that world any attempt at morality is futile. Everything would be subject to our own biased and prejudiced motivations. Its equivalent to, "I think this chemical reaction is evil while this one is not. The physical processes that transpired and caused the death or my newborn baby were morally bad while the ones that cause fruit to grow are not."" 
---- 

Perhaps there is a REASON for the laws we have in society. You, after all, accept it on faith. For those of us who do not have the privilege of infallible guidance, some hard questions have had to been asked. We have to examine our conscience and ask "why?" WHY we believe that one thing is immoral and another is moral. We do not appeal to an authority, we must reson for ourselves. 



Perhaps Elvis isn't dead or I am the smartest compilation of stardust in the universe. There is no "why." In fact, "why" is a neither true nor false set chemical reactions in your brain. Atheism (solipsism, satinism etc.) contradicts our everyday experiences.



Well, from the bible, I wouldn't know that human life is so precious. 

You don't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit so it is understandable as to why you would misinterpret the Bible.

"Meaning can and is found within the context of our own lives. Our meaning, for an example, may be found in building a better future, or working for your children."

Yeah, the matter of the universe does interact according to the laws of physics. This tiny speck in the outer edge of the milky way galaxy has conscious star dust on it. Star dust that has the utmost regard for the preservation of life. Define better.

" In the scheme of things, it's not going to count for much."

How do you know that? 

"The galaxies will continue to collide, the suns will continue to burn. Meaningfulness is possible without being so presumptuous as to think ourselves the center of the universe. "



What is meaningfulness and demonstrate how it is possible.

"I do not pretend to have the answers to the answers to the origins of the universe. I will not exclude the possibility that a God created the universe but I DO NOT KNOW. If I say merely that I do not know the origins of the universe, I am an atheist. "

Not buying the Kalam cosmological argument are ya?

"That we live in an orderly universe can be experimentally ascertained. The transcendental argument simply asserts that order can only be attributed to the functioning of a mind. (Namely that of God.) It takes this as a priori knowledge. Given this assumption, the arguments based on it are logical. The assumption is, however, unfounded. No one, not me, not you, can explain why the universe is orderly. "

And the agnostics everywhere rejoice!!!

"You may retort by claiming that you do. "God is the source of order." You are arguing that the existence of reason is due to God, who is knowable because of the existence of reason. A non-contingent being cannot (order) be adduced to prove a non-contingent being (God)."

"Order" as you put it requires something more to the universe than merely chemical and physical reactions . Epistemology itself requires something more. There is simply no basis for chemical reactions to be right or wrong or true or false. The atheist must account for this discrepancy.

"If Johnny is home, regardless of whether or not the lights are on, I cannot argue that Johnny is or isn't home based upon the facts that the lights are off." 

Who is Johnny and how much is his electric bill?

---- 
" . . . If the universe is nothing more than time and chance acting on matter, then this universal process must include our brains. If this includes our brains, then we have no reason for believing our thoughts to be anything other than brain gas -- intracranial epiphenomena." 
---- 

This is nonsense due simply to the fact that we KNOW our brains work logically from experience.

 We have observed that we can distinguish one object from two, that we can reason and *verify* our reasoning. Those things which are known only by chance are on the subatomic level. For practical purposes we live in an orderly universe which can be understood to some degree by humans. 

Yes we do know this. This means we also know atheism is a flawed world view! Your finally starting to catch on.

---- 
"He must explain how he knows his thoughts correspond to reality." 
---- 

Discernable order in the universe can be verified through experience. Experience can be gained by an organism through electrochemical means. (as proved by countless animal research projects and learning computer "neural networks") 

Well, I thought you were catching on.

"Ultimately, we don't KNOW that our thoughts correspond with reality. We have to assume that they do, as do you. For all you and I know, we are brains in jars. However, repeated observation leads us to believe that we live in a perceptible and orderly universe. "

Yes, and as the transcendental argument explains, these facts are incompatible with atheism.

---- 
"The brain secretes thoughts the same way the liver secretes bile. But if this is the case, then we have no reason for supposing that our thoughts are even true, and hence no reason for believing that we even have any brains. And this means we have no basis for assuming that we are assuming, no reason to think we are thinking. The position is internally contradictory, and thereby self-refuting."" 
---- 

You don't even have the rudiments of neurology to be able to differentiate the expulsion of bile from the gall bladder from the workings of the brain? There are massive differences, mainly the orderly structure of the neurons which permits it to do the incredible things that it does. It is neither simply secretion nor "fizzing". 

That was actually a quote. Well, since there are massive differences explain to me how these differences can be considered true or false or right and wrong. You have asserted morality is compatible with atheism, well, now is your chance to substantiate your claim.

"Empirical observation does not mean absolute truth. I agree with you one hundred percent. You go on to reason that because there is no absolute truth we "have no basis for assuming that we are assuming, no reason to think we are thinking." Yes, we do have a basis. Empirical observation. Is it absolute truth? No. It is, however, as close to the truth as we can get. Again, we have to avoid bifurcation. (eg. either we know absolute truth or there is no truth.) Our world is known to us in shades of grey. "

What is truth and how do we know this? I think that needs to be addressed before we continue. I think your hinting at the something called "practical proof?" I'm sorry though, maybe I rely on science too much. I find testable ideas much better than the rest.

 
"Do you not agree that music is simply the vibrations of air? So to is love the workings of neurons. Of course music involves order as does the brain. Music isn't "simply" vibrations. Love is not "only" chemical reactions. That does not mean you need ghosts to cause music, or God to cause love. "

From which world view do I answer the question from?

"Secondly, many actions performed out of any intent can cause good or bad results. I can mean perfectly well by giving my baby alcohol to calm it down but it may result in the child's death. The intent of an action does not directly determine the nature of the results. "



Thats like killing the cancer a human being may have. You may want to help out a sibling but your killing cancer.

"Deep down, you know I'm right. "

Ha! You can't even come up with a source for your epistemolgy Mr. .Star Dust

---- 
"...and the reason why is made clear in the Bible. Romans chapter 2 teaches that God's laws are written on our hearts. Our conscience testifies and bears witness to what is good. C.S Lewis' classic, Mere Christianity, talks about the law of human behavior in the opening chapters. "These, then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pg. 21) " 
---- 

Not everyone thinks or feels to be immoral that the bible says is immoral. 

The Bible addresses that. It talks about sin and mentions things like people being given over to their shameful lusts. It makes statements like, "The wickedness of men suppresses the truth.."

"Because there is order which is knowable to our minds, does *not* mean that we can conclude that this order comes from a mind. Ultimately to believe that order originates in a divine mind requires an act of faith. Faith is a conviction which stretches past the bounds of what we know. If we have evidence, what need is there for Faith?"

I have faith in the existence of atoms though I have never seen one individually. I have faith in the existence of China despite the fact that I have never been there. Even if what you are saying were true, you do not have evidence, you do not even have faith given your world view.

I'm too sleepy to type anymore. I'll try to get a response up to your post tomorrrow Emerald.



Peace,

Vinnie



</body>
</html>

[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited December 04, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited December 04, 2000).]

Tiassa · Dec 4, 2000

Bowser--

The definition is very clear: Atheist: "There is no god." Agnostic: "The question is too large."

You missed one and forgot one:

* Agnostic: The question is too big to answer; I don't know the answer.
* Theist: The question is too big to answer, so I'll just assume God exists.

Also, since you're so keen on defining atheists for them, I might refer you to the Diderot quote in my signature. After all, I figure one of the fathers of modern atheism might be worth considering.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Tiassa · Dec 5, 2000

Vinnie--

What about Genesis 2?

I guess atheism is similar to Christianity, both having different denominations of themselves.

You're more correct than you know. Roman pagans, and others, thought Christians were atheists. When Christians were finally able to explain what God was, they sounded like polytheists. But in the beginning, Christians had to tangle with the notion that they were ... without God.

One of the reasons the atheism you criticize is so similar to Christianity is the same reason Satanism looks like Christianity: reactionism. I can speak for Anton LaVey; he's never made any secret of the notion that hypocrisy among Christians moved him to raise the Church of Satan from the shadows. However, insofar as atheism is concerned, I'll direct you, as I did Bowser, to the signature quote on my recent posts, from Diderot. One of the reasons the atheism you object to is so similar to Christianity is that it is a reaction to Christianity. When social pressures were simply too tight, and everyone realized the theology didn't make any sense whatsoever, something happened. Simply, some people reassumed their relationship with the world, and chose not to worry about such silly things as God. Calvinists, Puritains ... it was, by popular convention, wrong to teach certain people to read because it was "unchristian" to stir them up with sentiments from newspapers or books. The people who formed the philosophical rejection of God you protest did so because God was no longer of any value. As Diderot notes, one of the most sublime and useless truths. Sure, the Catholic church got around to apologizing for some of its mistakes, but as I recall, the current Pope was up to about the 1500's when the year 2000 rolled around, and then he just said, "Blow me, you're all forgiven." Now, maybe that's credible to some people, but those of us with any affectation toward history are laughing. I know people of protestant faiths who think those things shouldn't be brought up in historical examinations on the grounds that the sins have been forgiven ... how convenient is that? Thus, the question becomes: And you expect people to accept this kind of behavior without question?

I mean, look at the Christian Trinity ... most of the developments of major councils, ecumenicals, ad nauseam that have affected how you perceive Christ Jesus even today, were political conventions designed to alleviate immediate tensions between the arguing factions and gave little or no consideration to the posterity of the religion. As pertains this specific religion, though, I completely understand the notion of forgetting to plan for the future when Jesus is supposed to come back any minute now.

But if it wasn't for the failure of A) Christians to understand their God, or B) God to explain things properly, I doubt we would have gotten to the atheist explosion of the 19th century quite so soon. We might have put it off until the 1920's, or so.

One last note ....

You don't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit so it is understandable as to why you would misinterpret the Bible.

That's about the answer I expect, when it comes up.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser · Dec 5, 2000

synaesthesia,

Well, this is turning into a mental adventure. I've thrown most of my morning into researching the etymology of the words "Atheist" and "Atheism." I have yet to find a comprehensive online source for exploring the origin and history of the word(s), but I'm still looking. If anyone has a link to such a site which they will share, I would appreciate it.

ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless, a-, without, See A1. + theos, god. See dhs-.

PREFIX : Without; not: amoral.

ETYMOLOGY: Greek. See ne.

atheist = atheos

Athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

I searched several online dictionaries, and the definitions pretty much echoes.

NOUN : 1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

In researching the Greek prefix "a," I find the following:

a-, an- (Greek: no, absence of, without, lack of, not; used as a prefix). Or...from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god (no god, absence of god, without god, lack of god, not god).

I also had a close look at...

-ism (Latin & Greek: act, condition; used as a suffix)
-ist (Latin: one who; used as a suffix)

All things considered thus far, I suppose it depends on which definition you cling: the definition of the elements of the word or the contemporary definition of the word. I can see your argument, but I still question the validity of that argument as it can be applied against current usage. I'm still researching the subject.

I've made an attempt at creating my own words (fun stuff).

Ectotheist: One who (is) outside of God
Ambitheist: One who (is) around God
Controtheist: One who (is) against God
Abtheist: One who (is) away from God
Netheist: One who (is) not God
Acosmist: One who (?) universal order

I placed below some of the URL's which I visited today, for your pleasure.

<hr> http://www.abasiccurriculum.com/homeschool/roots/ http://www.kent.wednet.edu/KSD/MA/resources/greek_and_latin_roots/prefix_1.html
http://www.allwords.com/ http://www.m-w.com/home.htm http://www.yourdictionary.com/
http://linguistlist.org/dictionaries.html
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,117394+1+109479,00.html
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited December 04, 2000).]

Cris · Dec 5, 2000

Take: a-, an- (Greek: no, absence of, without, lack of, not; used as a prefix).

And

Theism: Belief in a god or gods.

Put them together: A-theism = Absence of belief in a god or gods.

This is very different from saying that atheists BELIEVE that gods do not exist. That would be as irrational as a Christian saying that God does exist. Neither position can claim a proof. Atheists usually state that it is not acceptable to maintain a belief without believable evidence and proof; this is the method of rational thought.

As an atheist I do not accept your hypothesis that a god exists. This is not the same thing as saying I believe that a god does not exist. It is more along the lines that you have not proved your case and I feel no obligation to prove the opposite. I simply have no idea whether a god exists or not, but if you want me to hold such a belief then you must prove your case.

Most standard dictionary definitions are unreliable on the definition of atheism, and many people do not comprehend the important and essential distinction between ‘absence of belief’ and positive belief in something.

Hope this helps.

Cris

synaesthesia · Dec 5, 2000

ilgwamh:
----
“Maybe in the beginning. That's where God did. See Genesis one.”
----

I can just as easily refer to any scripture as being the word of God. Let’s avoid that kind of argument, shall we? Surely you can see that it will get no one anywhere.

ilgwamh:
----
“I sincerely apologize for not taking your word on it. My skeptical nature caused me to crack open (rather, click open) the dictionary. After four seconds of consulting with a friend of Webster, I found this:

Atheism (noun). 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God (capital "G" by the way). [From Greek Atheos, without a God]

I guess atheism is similar to Christianity, both having different denominations of themselves.”
----

As I said, that is a very narrow definition. A definition which most atheists would probably contest. Note the greek. “Without God” does not necessarily imply denial. Atheists simply do not accept God but that does not mean they positively assert his non-existence.

Atheism is very unlike christianity. Human beings will disagree on almost any point of philosophy. “If more then one person agree on absolutely everything, chances are, only one person is doing the thinking.” Atheism is a classification which encompasses ANYONE who does not believe in a deity. Without God.

If nothing else, remember that when I refer to atheism, I generally mean it in the broad sense.

ilgwamh:
----
>"Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God."

What is the difference between the two definitions? Is it just not a categorical statement of the nonexistence of God? Is it, I lack theism but I am not totally sure God doesn't exist because I realize the implications of Big Bang Cosmology and the futility of my own reasoning power?
----

Empiricism is about recognizing the limitations of reason, not abandoning it. The difference, for the purposes of your argument, isn’t all that important. It is, however, an important distinction.

I am not totally sure God doesn’t exist because I cannot be totally certain that ANY non-falsifiable being does not exist. Since God is not empirically falsifiable, I do not have logical justification for rejecting any kind of God outright. The strong atheist standpoint is not a strictly empirical one. It, like christianity, requires faith.

And what are these implications which you speak of? The belief that the universe needs to have been created? If time started at the big bang, what sense does it make to say that there was anything before it? The onus of proof lies upon you to justify your invocation of an unnecessary supernatural agency.

ilgwamh:
----
>"Because there are many different philosophical standpoints under the broad classification of "Atheism", to attack all of atheism, you need to come up with arguments which apply to any standpoint which does not involve a belief in any deity Broadly speaking, even agnosticism is a form of atheism. "

That's very convenient. In other words, atheism means I can worm myself away from God by any means my preconceived notions and personal biases deem convenient. So, in order to criticize atheism and build up the case for theism one must refute solipsism, agnosticism, satinism, synaesthesiaism, et cetera. No weak spot that can hit all of atheism head on? Christianity has one. "If Christ has not been raised..." The Dragon Smaug in the Hobbit didn't think he had any weakspots either. But one little arrow did the trick.
----

It isn’t very convenient for you. You cannot simply assert the existence of God and expect others to be satisfied with this. The onus of proof lies upon you.

And no, atheists do not consider begging the question to be proof.

ilgwamh:
----
>”I frequently hear people refer to the "evolutionary religion". What exactly this is escapes me. What ilgwamh refers to in this passage is "Spencerism" or more commonly (and less accurately) "Social Darwinism". He speaks of this as though it is a natural consequence of atheism. The fact is, it is not even the point of view taken by most people who believe in evolution. It is merely a misapplication of the theory of natural selection.“

I am sorry you don't appreciate the art of dramatization. Sit and read encyclopedias and dictionaries for hours on end if its your cup of tea.
----

Er... I meant that “Evolutionary Religion” is a misnomer. Evolution is simply a question of fact and of theory.

ilgwamh:
----
“How exactly does your denomination of atheism, solipsism or whatever it is that you believe, or rather, lack belief in, transcend the material world? The atheist world view seems to be driven by the laws of physics. Show me how you arrive at moral values given a lack of theism. Show me how some chemical reactions are bad while others are good.”

A chemical reaction cannot be good or bad. I do not believe in good and evil in the same sense that you do.

**Morality, in the sense that I view it, is only meaningful within the context of human action.** An earthquake is not morally evil although one can easily view it as being bad.

ilgwamh:
----
>"However, the difference between a human an a piece of paper is not either a matter of either atoms or souls. That bifurcation grossly misrepresents the materialist standpoint. Yes, I believe that the world is composed of atoms etc. Yes, both humans and paper targets are made of atoms. I recognize, however, that the human being has a mind. The human being is alive. You don't have to believe that we are supernatural creatures to believe that it is wrong to kill. Morality can and does have a material basis."

So what your saying is because the flesh knows a force (the bullet) is acting upon it, whereas the paper doesn't, it is morally bad? Well, why? If that is what your saying substantiate it.
----

**Morality, in the sense that I view it, is only meaningful within the context of human action.**

I think you misunderstood what I meant to say. It is not because the flesh *knows* that it is being destroyed which makes murder wrong. If that were the case, killing anyone who is unconscious would be morally permissible. Sentience (The ability to know the world in relation to the self; to perceive sensation and thought.) is certainly relevant to the issue. Morality largely serves as a social defense mechanism to minimize behavior which is harmful. That is a very material cause of morality. There is no need to appeal to any god as you suggest is necessary.

ilgwamh:
----
“What exactly does being alive have to do with morality. I do not see the corollary. In fact, I don't know what morality is. Enlighten me. Say something along the lines of, "I know it is infinitely wrong to murder a human being because with my infinite knowledge I posit it to be infinitely so." That wouldn't be a smart move on your part though, because you would then be God and that would cause problems for your philosophy. Simply define morality, good, bad, right, wrong, and show me where it fits into the scheme of things. I don't want your opinion. Leave the metaphysics at the door. I want scientific definitions. You know, definitions that have meaning in our universe.”
----

Morality may be broadly defined as “standards of behavior”. In most cases the standard is socially established. When talking about morality, you should keep in mind that I do not accept such concepts as “sin” because they do require the belief in God. I want to state very clearly that I do not believe in ANY “infinite” or absolutely universal morality.

It’s rather silly to be asking for a “scientific definition” of right and wrong when such concepts are philosophical rather then empirical.

ilgwamh:
----
I would think so. On what basis do atheists place values on lives?
----

On the basis of self-preservation. On the basis of genuine goodwill.

----
“I partially agree with that to a certain extent. The anthropic principle seems to be gaining ground. Maybe the earth is the center of the universe after all.”
----

Gaining ground? Human beings have existed for the duration of a heartbeat in comparison the rest of the universe. Humans die just like all other living things, they reproduce like all living things. The earth isn’t the center of the universe, it is not the center of the galaxy and it is not the center of the solar system. Anthropocentrism has been loosing ground for hundreds of years with no end in sight.

ilgwamh:
----
“If you knew tensor calculus I could explain it to you.”

Is that all? I would think some neurology would be required to explain how the conversion of mass to energy creates boredom in the human mind. I’ll tell you what, why don’t you just give a shot at explaining how you came to this remarkable conclusion and then we’ll talk about the nobel prize which is coming to you... (Unless you mean simply that tensor calculus is boring... ;-)

ilgwamh:
----
Perhaps Elvis isn't dead or I am the smartest compilation of stardust in the universe. There is no "why." In fact, "why" is a neither true nor false set chemical reactions in your brain. Atheism (solipsism, satinism etc.) contradicts our everyday experiences.
----

What is a true or false set of chemical reactions? When I said that “I must ask why”, I meant that I cannot simply appeal to the bible for moral guidance. I must decide myself why murder is wrong and why I behave as I do.

Atheism contradicts our everyday experience? A reference to the argument from design or something else? Please clarify.

ilgwamh:
----
You don't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit so it is understandable as to why you would misinterpret the Bible.
----

You mean that I won’t simply concede that “God is justified in all that he does”? Of course not. That statement simply glazes over the fact that the biblical God is either not consistent or not as perfectly self-evident as you would like to believe.

ilgwamh:
----
>"Meaning can and is found within the context of our own lives. Our meaning, for an example, may be found in building a better future, or working for your children."

Yeah, the matter of the universe does interact according to the laws of physics. This tiny speck in the outer edge of the milky way galaxy has conscious star dust on it. Star dust that has the utmost regard for the preservation of life. Define better.
----

Define WHAT better? Human beings are not simply stardust in the same way that music isn’t simply vibrations. Again, let me reiterate:
**Morality, in the sense that I view it, is only meaningful within the context of human action.**

ilgwamh:
----
>"In the scheme of things, it's not going to count for much....The galaxies will continue to collide, the suns will continue to burn. Meaningfulness is possible without being so presumptuous as to think ourselves the center of the universe. "

How do you know that?
-----

I know that galaxies will continue to collide, suns will continue to burn because in the past, despite human life and death, they have done so. I have no reason to think that their actions will change because of the life or death of any or all humans.

ilgwamh:
----
What is meaningfulness and demonstrate how it is possible.
----

If a life lead is meaningful to the person who lived it, it is meaningful. Like I said, I don’t need to resort to a sort of universal egocentrism to feel my life to be meaningful. It is possible because, as meaning is an aspect of human experience, many people feel that their work or lives are meaningful.

ilgwamh:
----
>"I do not pretend to have the answers to the answers to the origins of the universe. I will not exclude the possibility that a God created the universe but I DO NOT KNOW. If I say merely that I do not know the origins of the universe, I am an atheist. "

Not buying the Kalam cosmological argument are ya?
----

No, in fact. It rests on flawed assumptions.

ilgwamh:
----
>"If Johnny is home, regardless of whether or not the lights are on, I cannot argue that Johnny is or isn't home based upon the facts that the lights are off."

Who is Johnny and how much is his electric bill?
----

Let me restate this more directly.

The question that I was addressing is "If the universe is what the atheist claims, then how can we account for the emergence of a non-material and authoritative rationality?”

Ok, definition of “atheist” aside, let’s take a look at this argument. “Wilson argues that in order to debate God's existence you assume His existence by appealing to the authority of reason. “

Your argument runs, basically, like this:
a)There is order in the universe.
b)Such order can be described by the humans in terms of logical principals.
c)These principals (or laws) exist independently of the human mind.
Therefore:
d)There must be a mind which is the source of these laws. There is order, therefore there is an intelligent source of this order.

This means that atheists, in the absence of such a universal mind, have no epistemology. Their rational arguments are meaningless because reason requires a god.

That we live in an orderly universe is a pretty much uncontested fact. Things seem to operate in a consistent manner which can be described. To refer to this consistency as an “authoritative rationality” is begging the question. You presuppose the nature of order in the universe. How can you tell when a ball flies past you that it was acted upon? Well, we can conclude that it was pushed or pulled because our past experience suggests it. There is no way of knowing a priori that the ball was thrown.

If we had never seen an object fly, we would not be able to determine the cause.

Let me explain the analogy I presented in the earlier post in greater depth.

The existence of order in the universe is attributed to an intelligence. What I am saying is that you are not logically justified in doing so. We do not know if any god exists. (Or in the case of our analogy, whether or not John is home.) Observationally, we have verified that order exists. (Johns light is off.) But do we really know that order implies a mind behind it? (Do we really know that because John’s light is off, he is home?)

On what basis can we make such a judgement? (John’s light’s are off, therefore he is home? There is order, therefore there is a supernatural source to this order?)

----
" . . . If the universe is nothing more than time and chance acting on matter, then this universal process must include our brains. If this includes our brains, then we have no reason for believing our thoughts to be anything other than brain gas -- intracranial epiphenomena."

ilgwamh:
----
>”We have observed that we can distinguish one object from two, that we can reason and *verify* our reasoning. Those things which are known only by chance are on the subatomic level. For practical purposes we live in an orderly universe which can be understood to some degree by humans. “

Yes we do know this. This means we also know atheism is a flawed world view! Your finally starting to catch on.
----

As illustrated above, you need additional justification to make that assertion. Because the universe is knowable, it is orderly. We cannot draw from that proof for god.

ilgwamh:
----
>”Discernable order in the universe can be verified through experience. Experience can be gained by an organism through electrochemical means. (as proved by countless animal research projects and learning computer "neural networks")”

Well, I thought you were catching on.
----

Logic does not have to be supernatural.

ilgwamh:
----
That was actually a quote. Well, since there are massive differences explain to me how these differences can be considered true or false or right and wrong. You have asserted morality is compatible with atheism, well, now is your chance to substantiate your claim.
----

Morality, in the sense that I view it, is only meaningful within the context of human action. Human action does not require a supernatural explanation.

ilgwamh:
----
“What is truth and how do we know this? I think that needs to be addressed before we continue. I think your hinting at the something called "practical proof?" I'm sorry though, maybe I rely on science too much. I find testable ideas much better than the rest.”
----

This is most ironic. Well, if you rely on science too much, then you’ll know what knowledge, in the empirical sense, is. If you aready know this, then you know my answer.

Yes, I too prefer testable ideas much better. Can we falsify the assertion that thought occurs in the brain? Yes. Can we falsify the assertion that God exists? No. Can we falsify souls? No.

ilgwamh:
----
Ha! You can't even come up with a source for your epistemolgy Mr. .Star Dust
----

Source of Epistemology: Reason and empirical testing. That wasn’t so hard.

ilgwamh:
----
>”Not everyone thinks or feels to be immoral that the bible says is immoral.”

The Bible addresses that. It talks about sin and mentions things like people being given over to their shameful lusts. It makes statements like, "The wickedness of men suppresses the truth.."
----

You are taking it for granted that denial of biblical morality, (For an example, I believe that rape is morally wrong.) is incorrect.

ilgwamh:
----
I have faith in the existence of atoms though I have never seen one individually. I have faith in the existence of China despite the fact that I have never been there. Even if what you are saying were true, you do not have evidence, you do not even have faith given your world view.
----

If you have evidence, no faith is required. Atoms are well proven experimentally. No, I do not believe that faith is a valid form of knowledge.

Now, when you use the word faith, you mean it simply to mean a conviction. You are convinced that atoms exist. Using that meaning, it should be noted that faith (ie. belief.) has no bearing upon reality.

The accuracy and precision of many assertions can be verified experimentally. God cannot be falsified empirically and so belief in him is in a different realm then the belief in atoms. I refer to the former as “faith.”

Regards,
Synaesthesia (Tim)
"Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."

Bowser · Dec 5, 2000

Tiassa,

"Also, since you're so keen on defining atheists for them, I might refer you to the Diderot quote in my signature. After all, I figure one of the fathers of modern atheism might be worth considering."

Anaxagoras, Greek philosopher (500?-428? BCE).
Diagoras "the Atheist" of Melos, Greek poet, (5th cent. BCE).

They all look alike to me: http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser · Dec 5, 2000

Cris,

Take: a-, an- (Greek: no, absence of, without, lack of, not; used as a prefix).
And

Theism: Belief in a god or gods.

Put them together: A-theism = Absence of belief in a god or gods.

This is how I see it:

...from Greek atheos, godless.
A-(No) -theos-(God) -ist(one who) or -ism(act, condition)

And this is how it looks to me:

"One who has no god" or "the condition of having no god." I see no reference to "beliefs."

Are you an Atheist, Cris?

------------------
It's all very large.

FyreStar · Dec 5, 2000

Greetings -

I don't really want to add anything, just applaud Synaesthesia for a valiant attempt at correcting bowser and ilg. Nice work man.

FyreStar

I wonder if Merriam or Webster were religious?

Tiassa · Dec 5, 2000

They all look alike to me

That's generally the problem.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser · Dec 5, 2000

FyreStar,

In another 50 years the meaning of the word might change.

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,108521+4+106031,00.html
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,119039+1+110292,00.html
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,119039+2+110292,00.html
http://library.usask.ca/ejournals/03/6/0363-6941.html
http://www.orions.ad.jp/c/urls/word/p/h/ilology.html
http://www.obu.edu/library/english%20periodicals.htm
http://www.georgetown.edu/cball/oe/oe-orgs.html
http://www.nd.edu/~archives/latgramm.htm

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa · Dec 5, 2000

"One who has no god" or "the condition of having no god."

is a far cry from:

"The doctrine that there is no God"

To hear certain summaries of the beginnings of the Abramic tradition, there's this guy walking out in the desert when one day a god named Yahweh, apparently feeling lonely, offers Abram a deal he can't refuse, and so he takes that el and makes him an elohim. Prior to making Yahweh-god "his god", Abram "had no god".

I don't believe in a good number of things in the Universe, starting with American Republicans. That I disbelieve speaks nothing of whether they exist or not.

Now, that may go a long way toward justifying the presence of a god, as well, but I still have yet to see "god" expressed as clearly as gravity. In that sense, I would charge that theists are simply disbelieving the idea that the Universe can exist without a god who holds humanity at the center of its regard.

just a couple of pennies'-worth for the heck of it ....

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Don't miss out on the latest discussions.

The Limitations of Atheism.

Bowser

Namaste

Emerald

ilgwamh

Fallen Angel

Bowser

Namaste

Emerald

synaesthesia

Bowser

Namaste

synaesthesia

ilgwamh

Fallen Angel

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

Bowser

Namaste

Cris

In search of Immortality

synaesthesia

Bowser

Namaste

Bowser

Namaste

FyreStar

Faithless since 1980

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

Bowser

Namaste

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...