• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why modern atheism is so shallow

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Yes, but between believing and not believing, in a very arbitrarily defined concept (let's not forget there are many definitions of God), there is a whole spectrum of sentiments.

The variety of arguments built upon a false premise is irrelevant. If your argument begins with "Flying pigs have difficulty landing, therefore...", it really doesn't matter where you go from there, however logical or well thought-out.

I choose to think that there is no good-enough explanations for the "God exists" proposition on either side, to be argued for or against.

Again, the fact that the existence of a thing cannot be disproven is no reason to believe that it exists. This is all theists have going in their favor - that their beliefs cannot be disproven. Meanwhile, science, built on the belief that a knowable universe exists and operates according to knowable principles, has provided ample evidence in favor of its accuracy.

I prefer my beliefs to be built upon the foundation of evidence. However, if you're content with a worldview that forces you to shrug your shoulders and say, "I guess you have a point" to someone who tells you he believes in invisible hollow unicorns, all the more power to you, I suppose.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
The variety of arguments built upon a false premise is irrelevant. If your argument begins with "Flying pigs have difficulty landing, therefore...", it really doesn't matter where you go from there, however logical or well thought-out.

You're assuming it's false. That there isn't an god entity in this universe. You can call it a false premise if you don't prove it's false.



Again, the fact that the existence of a thing cannot be disproven is no reason to believe that it exists. This is all theists have going in their favor - that their beliefs cannot be disproven. Meanwhile, science, built on the belief that a knowable universe exists and operates according to knowable principles, has provided ample evidence in favor of its accuracy.

I prefer my beliefs to be built upon the foundation of evidence. However, if you're content with a worldview that forces you to shrug your shoulders and say, "I guess you have a point" to someone who tells you he believes in invisible hollow unicorns, all the more power to you, I suppose.

Are you deliberately missing my point or what? I'm an agnostic, I don't believe in the Christian, Islamic or any other religious view I came across. I simply don't dismiss the possibility of our universe having a creative force behind it. I believe in science and evidence too. I don't believe in invisible hollow unicorns, but the fact remains I can't prove they don't exist. That is a given. That doesn't mean I don't find people who do believe in such things, silly like I pointed out. So as far as shrugging my shoulders is concerned, what would you have me do? Who am I to judge the happiness of someone who truly believes such beings exists? I can tell them they don't exist as many times as I want, but for what?



What if 1000 years ago, someone actually believed in something akin to the Big Bang? Wouldn't that person be considered silly? Yes. Could he prove it? No. Is it any less true because of that? Apparently not.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
You're assuming it's false. That there isn't an god entity in this universe. You can call it a false premise if you don't prove it's false.





Are you deliberately missing my point or what? I'm an agnostic, I don't believe in the Christian, Islamic or any other religious view I came across. I simply don't dismiss the possibility of our universe having a creative force behind it. I believe in science and evidence too. I don't believe in invisible hollow unicorns, but the fact remains I can't prove they don't exist. That is a given. That doesn't mean I don't find people who do believe in such things, silly like I pointed out. So as far as shrugging my shoulders is concerned, what would you have me do? Who am I to judge the happiness of someone who truly believes such beings exists? I can tell them they don't exist as many times as I want, but for what?



What if 1000 years ago, someone actually believed in something akin to the Big Bang? Wouldn't that person be considered silly? Yes. Could he prove it? No. Is it any less true because of that? Apparently not.


whether you like it or not, you've already made a decision. By not actively being a believer, you've entered the realm of "lack of belief". Which is exactly what most reasonable atheists maintain. Dawkins, dennet, harris etc... none would claim 100% belief in the idea that there is no god. Any sane atheist is in reality, an "agnostic" in the same almost anal retentive way you are trying to beat this horse with. The difference, is that most of these sane agnostics realize that 95% sure "there is no god", while not 100%, is good enough. De facto atheist is what most atheists truly qualify as.

atheism is a lack of belief. antitheism would be the actual anti to theism. By not believing in anything, you are practically a de facto atheist whether you like it or not.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
And modern chatolicism is so boring.
 

vince

New member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
320
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w
nice try bill oriely :)... just because I lack a belief in God or wicca does not mean Im going to be like stalin if im in power. im sure you've heard of secular humanism.

hehe point noted. so this thread is about you now ? :)
 

vince

New member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
320
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w
Vince, relax please.

Victor's posts need not be interpreted as clear-cut statements. He does not seek to deliver a message, he just seeks to evoke an emotional reaction from others. He has not commitment to factual accuracy or logical consistency, as his claims stand, they are strictly non-sense. But nonetheless may be an interesting outlet for our imagination.

*takes chill pill*
thanks. I'll keep that in mind :)
 

vince

New member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
320
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w
Anyway, as you'll discover if you do read one of his books, he is very much in awe at the greatness of the universe and its workings. He's a very passionate individual. (Although it should be noted that the passion with which an argument is presented has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is accurate or true.)

mkay, note to self : definitely need to read Dawkins' book(s).
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
whether you like it or not, you've already made a decision. By not actively being a believer, you've entered the realm of "lack of belief". Which is exactly what most reasonable atheists maintain. Dawkins, dennet, harris etc... none would claim 100% belief in the idea that there is no god. Any sane atheist is in reality, an "agnostic" in the same almost anal retentive way you are trying to beat this horse with. The difference, is that most of these sane agnostics realize that 95% sure "there is no god", while not 100%, is good enough. De facto atheist is what most atheists truly qualify as.

atheism is a lack of belief. antitheism would be the actual anti to theism. By not believing in anything, you are practically a de facto atheist whether you like it or not.

I would never say something like "there is no god", though. Not unless we are talking about a very specific one. And even then, I'm not sure. Don't make it so clean-cut, specially when you are talking about someone else's opinion. Unless you want to make this about semantics. Quite okay with that. In fact I started posting in this thread by asking if we were simply talking about atheism or atheism and agnosticism.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
You're assuming it's false. That there isn't an god entity in this universe. You can (sic) call it a false premise if you don't prove it's false.

I responded to your insinuation that this "spectrum of sentiments" in some shape or fashion means anything. A "spectrum of sentiments" built upon the foundation of a premise that is demonstrably mistaken to the extent that anything can ever be demonstrably mistaken (a pretty good extent!) is no the more deserving of consideration for its diversity.

The notion that nothing can be discarded as false if it cannot be proven to be false to a degree of 100% absolute and utter certainty is at odds with science.

Are you deliberately missing my point or what? I'm an agnostic, I don't believe in the Christian, Islamic or any other religious view I came across. I simply don't dismiss the possibility of our universe having a creative force behind it.

As Babylon Candle pointed out, even an atheist will not claim that there is absolutely, positively no chance whatsoever that a divine being exists - simply that it is equally as unlikely as invisible hollow unicorns.

I believe in science and evidence too.

I think the grammatically tortuous "I don't not believe in science and evidence" would be more accurate to your fundamentally evasive worldview.

I don't believe in invisible hollow unicorns, but the fact remains I can't prove they don't exist. That is a given. That doesn't mean I don't find people who do believe in such things, silly like I pointed out. So as far as shrugging my shoulders is concerned, what would you have me do? Who am I to judge the happiness of someone who truly believes such beings exists? I can tell them they don't exist as many times as I want, but for what?

Then I am curious: do you consider the existence of a deity equally as unlikely as the existence of invisible hollow unicorns?

What if 1000 years ago, someone actually believed in something akin to the Big Bang? Wouldn't that person be considered silly? Yes. Could he prove it? No. Is it any less true because of that? Apparently not.

This is a striking example of the advances made by reason and science, which I would think would be at odds with your implied argument that, ultimately, science is just another "viewpoint" which commands no more respect than religion.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
As Babylon Candle pointed out, even an atheist will not claim that there is absolutely, positively no chance whatsoever that a divine being exists - simply that it is equally as unlikely as invisible hollow unicorns.
An atheist need merely think that a god does not exist. How likely he thinks it is that a god exists compared to the likelihood that an invisible unicron exists is irrelevent.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
I responded to your insinuation that this "spectrum of sentiments" in some shape or fashion means anything. A "spectrum of sentiments" built upon the foundation of a premise that is demonstrably mistaken to the extent that anything can ever be demonstrably mistaken (a pretty good extent!) is no the more deserving of consideration for its diversity.

The notion that nothing can be discarded as false if it cannot be proven to be false to a degree of 100% absolute and utter certainty is at odds with science.

(Obviously, I meant "can't" and not "can")

Science does not say "outrageous theory A" or B is wrong, though. It ignores what it can't prove, but it doesn't come out and deny it, because it would be pretty hypocritical - it bases it's claims on data and logic. If a scientist 1000 years ago said that "Big Bang" guy was wrong, he would be making a mistake. Every time an outrageous (but sometimes very right) theory comes along there are different stances a scientist can take. Some blatantly deny the possibility and some, while skeptic, don't go out of their way to try and kill that idea. That's what I meant by a spectrum. As you can see, there is, if nothing else, a "trinary" choice a scientist can make here.

As Babylon Candle pointed out, even an atheist will not claim that there is absolutely, positively no chance whatsoever that a divine being exists - simply that it is equally as unlikely as invisible hollow unicorns.

What's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist in your opinion then? Never mind me, the classic example of an atheist and an agnostic.


I think the grammatically tortuous "I don't not believe in science and evidence" would be more accurate to your fundamentally evasive worldview.

I don't really know how to make myself any clearer. You are misinterpreting me, it seems. If anything my world view would be "I don't not believe in god". I do believe in evidence more than anything. But there is no evidence for disproving the existence of god.


Then I am curious: do you consider the existence of a deity equally as unlikely as the existence of invisible hollow unicorns?

Not and doing so would be pretty arbitrary on my part. I have no mean to verify either of those cases. There is something to be said about giving the example of something, which I'm guessing is something you want to stress out as outrageous (the unicorn thing), when trying to prove your point. It's not wrong, it's perfectly fine. But there's at least another way to look at it. Do you believe that at this point in time a blond girl in Beijing, is doing sit-ups while eating a taco with chocolate topping and watching the latest David Lynch movie in an old tv set from the 50s? You can believe so, you can say it's possible and you can also choose to say it's not happening.

This is a striking example of the advances made by reason and science, which I would think would be at odds with your implied argument that, ultimately, science is just another "viewpoint" which commands no more respect than religion.

What the! Now you are putting words into my mouth. Listen, I believe in EVIDENCE. The rest I choose not to bother myself with. I'm not saying science commands just as much respect as religion, for me. I think you are trying to saying science is atheist but that isn't the case. There are loads of religious scientists throughout history. My point is that a similarly outrageous (in relation to what was/is commonly believed) theory today, would probably see the same kind of dismissal by people such as you , which DOESN'T change the fact that it could still be right.
 
Last edited:

NoahFence

New member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
288
MBTI Type
INTP
The greatest irony of this thread, to me, is that science, as a principle, is fundamentally designed to remove the prejudices and assumptions of the observer. And on the athiest side, you people are so full of prejudices and assumptions, it just makes me want to cry from frustration.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
The greatest irony of this thread, to me, is that science, as a principle, is fundamentally designed to remove the prejudices and assumptions of the observer.
Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Contemporary philosophy of science is preoccupied with verification, confirmation, or justification. It has entangled questions regarding the testability of theories, with questions of human psychology and our feeling toward a theory because of some experience or other. It is concerned not with what is right or true, but with what someone can legitimately believe.

At the root of most of the naive atheism of which you complain are unnoticed metaphysical assumptions. Richard Dawkins, in my view, has popularised their errors.
 

NoahFence

New member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
288
MBTI Type
INTP
The vehemence with which I'm attacked every time I compare science in today's society with a religion is downright...well, conclusive.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
The greatest irony of this thread, to me, is that science, as a principle, is fundamentally designed to remove the prejudices and assumptions of the observer. And on the athiest side, you people are so full of prejudices and assumptions, it just makes me want to cry from frustration.

That's the essence of scientism for you.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The vehemence with which I'm attacked every time I compare science in today's society with a religion is downright...well, conclusive.

and heres some more vehemence, on cue :)

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise... At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is."
--Thomas Jefferson

At least the "religion" of science has "faith" in real things. Its not like science asks us to believe in invisible Martian ice cream trucks. Do scientists make vast leaps in logic/intuition that sometimes end up wrong and are revised? YES. They do. Im sure of it.

The fact that science is sometimes wrong or takes too big of leaps of faith (sometimes) is inconsequential. science still gives us REAL material USEFUL things. Hardly anything that religion can say its directly brought us.

i would rather be in a religion that believes in somethings (naturalism)
than a religion that talks of nothings (immaterial/magic etc)
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
The vehemence with which I'm attacked every time I compare science in today's society with a religion is downright...well, conclusive.

I think you confuse "accurately refuted" with "vehemently attacked".
 

NoahFence

New member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
288
MBTI Type
INTP
I think you confuse "accurately refuted" with "vehemently attacked".

No, I can tell the difference. Mainly it has to do with calling me stupid, which I bounce between being amused by and finding incredibly frustrating.

My point is that to the common man, there is magic (i push this button and Oprah appears on my glass box) that they cannot adequately explain...there are untouchable priests with whom they never interact (scientists), who babble things arcane in nature...and they take it on faith that these magical items (gasoline, pills, electronics et. al.) have arrived for them to use in a way that has been accurately described. And YES it is on faith, very few of us have the luxury of being able to verify such things. Can you honestly tell me you can prove to me that the pills we take aren't being harvested from some tree somewhere? NO I don't believe this....if you have a clue where I'm going with this, you'll understand that it doesn't matter what I believe. Belief is NOT PART OF VERIFICATION for the love'a'pete!

Most people's mentalities are fundamentally unaltered from the days when these functions were performed by religion. Some smart guy out there, whom they will never talk to directly, knows how the universe works, and is seeing to such details so they don't have to...meanwhile they read the Cliff's Notes once in a great while and go back to their beer.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Most people's mentalities are fundamentally unaltered from the days when these functions were performed by religion. Some smart guy out there, whom they will never talk to directly, knows how the universe works, and is seeing to such details so they don't have to...meanwhile they read the Cliff's Notes once in a great while and go back to their beer.

the difference is that our shit works.

shaman healing homeopathic stuff = dont work.
druids claimed the dead walked the earth for one night = dont work.

mr scientist tells me to take advil for a headache = it works
the mechanic tells me that changing my oil is good for the car = it works

is it faith that i believe the TV when it shows the football game down the street to be real time? ya, i guess. But it sure works. Im not sure we can say the same for prophecy, laying hands etc...

the issue is not whether people take things on faith. of course they do. the issue is not whether scientists are infallible. of course they can be wrong. the issue that the alternative = religious immaterialism, is to talk of nothings.
 
Top