Why I Am An Atheist

[Dalek Prime]

Would really like to read a sensible response to this article from Nicky.

You incorrigible little dreamer!
He doesn't do sensible. He does recitation.

"The worst reason for not believing in God (though the least obviously bad), is that there is no evidence for His existence."

Dalek Prime - - Is there another reason not to?

Yes, I think so. Lack of evidence for or against the existence of something is devoid of information. Not so much like werewolves as extraterrestrials. The possibility is not ruled out; the evidence may yet be forthcoming. I'm sure there is a lot of stuff still out there that we don't eff or comprehend, and no amount of Simonoid raving will make any of it relevant unless and until we catch a whiff thereof. Skip, your comparison of god to aliens fails, because aliens would be far away, and I could accept the possibility they may exist, and haven't been noted because of physical limitations regarding travel and communication. This would not be the case for a god that is omnipresent ie. everywhere.

My main reason for not believing in any particular god is that very particularity. Somebody named, described, characterized, attributed powers and preferences to, told stories about and dedicated edifices to a being for whose existence he provided no evidence. And then asked for money. That sounds awfully like every other con in history. I have a positive reason to disbelieve somebody who's trying to cheat me. Not merely that I can't see the guy, but that the guy so badly wants something from me.
Newton posited gravity but never said it would punish anybody who slept with a socially disapproved partner or recruited them to kill Saracens in its name or collected tithes.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing wrote: Then how is it that you think you can comprehend it at all... and think you know that it exists?

How are some people open to the relationship between knowledge initiating with the world of forms and the devolution of knowledge into opinions as described by Plato? Many are not open to contemplate this vertical connection between knowledge and opinions and deny for the sake of denial. Why, I don’t know. I’m just happy that I am open to it and the relationship between a transcendent source and its involution creating our universe.

Also, can you please offer your perspective as to whether a "source of creation" has to be something that has thoughts and agendas? Why couldn't a "source of creation" simply be chemical? How is that less likely than a full-blown being?

Chemicals are not conscious. Consciousness creates universal laws. They cannot emerge by accident. Thoughts and agendas are attributes attributed to a personal god. The transcendent god doesn’t require literal thought or agendas. God IS. The process of existence includes thoughts and agendas.

Oh, and I'd still like to know what you think about the spirit-killing that goes on for childrenwithin religion in SO MANY WAYS... or do you think that the madness within religion doesn't count? Is anyone protecting the children from that... or are they just "protecting" children from non-theists?

Both blind denial and blind belief are spirit killers. What of the young minority who sense the madness in both blind belief and blind denial and seek to become able to “see” for the sake of their need to experience meaning? What could be worse than being stuck in the middle of opposing sources of madness for a person with a sincere need to experience objective human meaning and purpose and not know how to stand up to madness?

[Dalek Prime]

Someone just farted, and it wasn't me. I'm hoping someone will own up to it, as there is one thing I won't stand for, and that is blind denial of giving birth to an otherwise healthy, happy (and stinky) fart. Own up to your fart, dammit! Don't leave it an orphan bastard!

[Skip]

Skip, your comparison of god to aliens fails, because aliens would be far away, and I could accept the possibility they may exist, and haven't been noted because of physical limitations regarding travel and communication. This would not be the case for a god that is omnipresent ie. everywhere.

I didn't compare any particular god to aliens. The one to which you refer is omnipresent in a diffused state, not so easy to detect. And, of course, most gods are not described as omni-anything. In fact, some god-claims are so vague, it's difficult even to imagine the detection devices one would have to invent in order to gather evidence. My comparison of aliens was to werewolves. That is, werewolves are supposedly earth-bound and physical: described in practical enough terms to start looking for. So, lack of evidence of their existence would carry some weight, though no conclusive proof. While, looking for extraterrestrial life is beyond our present capability, so the question of their existence remains moot. As does the question of the existence of any other entity we can't detect. Moot and irrelevant.

[Dalek Prime]

Skip, your comparison of god to aliens fails, because aliens would be far away, and I could accept the possibility they may exist, and haven't been noted because of physical limitations regarding travel and communication. This would not be the case for a god that is omnipresent ie. everywhere.

I didn't compare any particular god to aliens. The one to which you refer is omnipresent in a diffused state, not so easy to detect. And, of course, most gods are not described as omni-anything. In fact, some god-claims are so vague, it's difficult even to imagine the detection devices one would have to invent in order to gather evidence. My comparison of aliens was to werewolves. That is, werewolves are supposedly earth-bound and physical: described in practical enough terms to start looking for. So, lack of evidence of their existence would carry some weight, though no conclusive proof. While, looking for extraterrestrial life is beyond our present capability, so the question of their existence remains moot. As does the question of the existence of any other entity we can't detect. Moot and irrelevant.

You've read Russell's teapot, yes? That's his whole point, that it can't be detected, but we've heard about it for so long, that it's become something more than what it is, which is? Nothing.

I'll take Russell over this chap any day.

[Dalek Prime]

No need to read this article, as we are reliably informed he elsewhere, must be a blind denier.

Would really like to read a sensible response to this article from Nicky. Any chance?

Oh, stop teasing us with the improbable.

[marjoram_blues]

From the piece...

"The worst reason for not believing in God (though the least obviously bad), is that there is no evidence for His existence."

This is the foundation for my disbelief: no evidence, as I assess things.

Guess I'm a bad atheist.

*shrug*

I can live with that.

Dear Henry, let's face it you're just an all-round bad boy

Tallis said he and philosopher J. Baggini and crimewriter/humanist C. Brookmyre had to begin an atheism debate by giving their reasons.
He realised that he didn't know which reason had contributed most to his 'happy state of unbelief', nor which was 'decisive'.

I think this is important, is there a certain 'decisive moment' in which someone simply 'turns' atheist; compare a moment of spiritual certainty/enlightenment based on a perception of God - either His Voice or an event.

Is there a good enough reason for being an atheist, a theist, or somewhere in between - an uncertain ditherer, who at one point is a bad or a good Christian, then uncertain, then a bad or a good atheist. However, the focus here is not on the person who is bad or good, but the reason for 'deciding that one is, or should be an atheist' - or theist for that matter.

Tallis suggests that the bad reasons are more influential; then describes 4 of them:

1. the worst: no evidence. 'The appeal to evidence, or lack, will always be inconclusive'.
2. hostility to religious institutions.
3. the problem of evil - as shown by history. We don't know if religion is a NET force for evil. Is there a NET benefit to us from religion and its moral codes?
4. 'Religious belief can scare people witless, particularly children, with their doctrines of salvation and damnation'.

Tallis sums up this part by saying that the bad reasons are based on confusion between the metaphysical and institutional aspects. The claims and the prescriptions. Who is authorised, and what we should be guided to do.
'An intellectual defence should separate institutions from propositions' - do theists separate these aspects ? No, God's Wisdom is both metaphysical and a set of prescriptions. Not to be questioned.

More later...

[marjoram_blues]

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Dr. Tallis seems to be one of the atheists serving as a purification of the notion of God. No raving emotional denial; just calm questioning. As I see it, his atheism is a reaction to idolatry. Einstein, Simone Weil, and others have expressed the same denial of idolatry.


MB: Thanks for part of a quote about Simone Weil's observation on atheism. I haven't read any of Weil's works, so perhaps that will be a later exploration for me. Many writers have a multitude of thoughts about what atheism is, or entails. I wanted in this thread to focus on the reasons - as inspired by your thread title 'Who is really an atheist ?' So, as to the 'Who', this PN article gives a very pertinent account of one man's analysis and explanation; presenting his case. Many posters here have given similar accounts on your thread, so your question has been answered, but not apparently to your satisfaction?

I have no idea how you gained the impression that Tallis 'serves as a purification of the notion of God' - what do you mean by this? A direct answer would be appreciated. Again, many others on this site have also given intelligent analyses which often go ignored, for whatever reason. I doubt you have even read the article. He spells out clearly and honestly his reasons, both bad and good. There is no mention of a 'reaction to idolatry'...

Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 53).

MB: Interesting. But who is the 'we' ? Certainly, I do not thirst for 'absolute good'. As to having the 'power of supernatural attention' - how would it develop - like a photograph ?

Idolatry is the result of the lack of conscious attention. This lack produces self justifying imagination including idolatry taking the place of what is beyond our comprehension. Since only a few will take the practice of conscious attention seriously, everything will continue as is. It is the norm for life in Plato's cave.

MB: Idolatry - from wiki - Idolatry is the worship of an idol or a physical object as a representation of a god. In all the Abrahamic religions idolatry is strongly forbidden, although views as to what constitutes idolatry differ within and between them. In some other religions the use of idols is accepted. Which images, ideas, and objects constitute idolatry is often a matter of considerable contention.

So, are you saying that everyone should practise 'conscious attention' and then nobody will practise idolatry ? is this conscious attention the same as supernatural attention ? Same question as before..
What if what my 'conscious attention' discovers is a different flavour to yours; is it wrong - would you set up 'yours' as something to be believed at all costs ? This seems very hazy and unsubstantial, unlike the serious attention given to the issue by Tallis.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes, there are two basic god concepts: the personal god and the transcendent god.

Both of which Tallis rejects, and without any reference to idolatry.

[marjoram_blues]

[
Dr. Tallis seems to be one of the atheists serving as a purification of the notion of God. No raving emotional denial; just calm questioning. As I see it, his atheism is a reaction to idolatry. Einstein, Simone Weil, and others have expressed the same denial of idolatry.

Just like a religious nut to make proclamations about the intent of a person, never having read what he has written.
Instead of taking the trouble to read what Tallis said, you continue your worn out argument about Simone Weil. You need to learn to read more. Two books is not enough for a good grounding in philosophy.

Tallis said nothing of idolatry at all. After a list of bad reasons to be an atheist - all of them reasonable given the aggregate of their consequences. Tallis then rounds on his single and most convincing argument against God, and one that despite your blindness most atheists here has already stated one way or another:
"intellectually the case does not rest on the lack of evidence for God, or the bad behaviour of believers and religious institutions, but on the idea of God itself, which insofar as it is not entirely empty, is self-contradictory, and makes less sense than that which it purports to explain."

Well summarised.

[marjoram_blues]

Would really like to read a sensible response to this article from Nicky.

You incorrigible little dreamer!
He doesn't do sensible. He does recitation.

MB: Yeah, I kinda heard the voices singing 'Dream On' - but worth a shot, anyway.

"The worst reason for not believing in God (though the least obviously bad), is that there is no evidence for His existence."

Dalek Prime - - Is there another reason not to?

Yes, I think so. Lack of evidence for or against the existence of something is devoid of information. Not so much like werewolves as extraterrestrials. The possibility is not ruled out; the evidence may yet be forthcoming. I'm sure there is a lot of stuff still out there that we don't eff or comprehend, and no amount of Simonoid raving will make any of it relevant unless and until we catch a whiff thereof.

MB: Yes, Tallis lists a number of them. For me, the important point here is that it is a waste of time using the 'bad' reasons in any argument, given the endless circle of getting nowhere fast.

My main reason for not believing in any particular god is that very particularity. Somebody named, described, characterized, attributed powers and preferences to, told stories about and dedicated edifices to a being for whose existence he provided no evidence. And then asked for money. That sounds awfully like every other con in history. I have a positive reason to disbelieve somebody who's trying to cheat me. Not merely that I can't see the guy, but that the guy so badly wants something from me.
Newton posited gravity but never said it would punish anybody who slept with a socially disapproved partner or recruited them to kill Saracens in its name or collected tithes.

MB: Sounds like paltering at the altar ? What goods are you seduced into buying at what Tallis described as 'The Shopping Mall of Theological Ideas'.

[marjoram_blues]

Actually, it's a pretty good essay.

Really, really good

[uwot]

God IS.

How can you keep bleating this and blindly deny that you are a blind believer? As for all that rot about being open to the possility of god, who isn't? The moment he parts the clouds and days 'Peek-a-boo!', I and most others will believe. In the meantime, anything suggested as evidence for god can only be accepted by blind believers.

[marjoram_blues]

Lacewing wrote: Then how is it that you think you can comprehend it at all... and think you know that it exists?

How are some people open to the relationship between knowledge initiating with the world of forms and the devolution of knowledge into opinions as described by Plato? Many are not open to contemplate this vertical connection between knowledge and opinions and deny for the sake of denial. Why, I don’t know. I’m just happy that I am open to it and the relationship between a transcendent source and its involution creating our universe.

MB: ?? Generally posters here have not 'denied for he sake of denial' - nor has Tallis. Why would any connection between knowledge and opinions be 'vertical' ? OK, I know this isn't particularly relevant to this particular thread - however, it does seem to be a sticking point or 'blind spot' in your reflection, if any, on the varied posts by others, who you refer to as 'blind'. In what way is exploration of deciding to be an atheist or theist 'blind'.

Also, can you please offer your perspective as to whether a "source of creation" has to be something that has thoughts and agendas? Why couldn't a "source of creation" simply be chemical? How is that less likely than a full-blown being?

Chemicals are not conscious. Consciousness creates universal laws. They cannot emerge by accident. Thoughts and agendas are attributes attributed to a personal god. The transcendent god doesn’t require literal thought or agendas. God IS. The process of existence includes thoughts and agendas.

MB: Tallis suggests that to be a 'sincere agnostic', anyone would have to 'entertain a notion of God: infinite but with special characteristics. Unbounded, but distinct from his creation; a Being that has not been brought into being...' Basically is it worth the effort to try and 'square the circle' of a constrained God unable or unwilling to create a world without evil ?

So, 'Why are you a theist ? Who is really a theist?' - turning your question round. Could you offer examples/reasons in an analytical fashion. Clear and distinct? Please try Nicky ! Some posters here think you are unable to be sensible. Prove them wrong ?

Oh, and I'd still like to know what you think about the spirit-killing that goes on for childrenwithin religion in SO MANY WAYS... or do you think that the madness within religion doesn't count? Is anyone protecting the children from that... or are they just "protecting" children from non-theists?

Both blind denial and blind belief are spirit killers. What of the young minority who sense the madness in both blind belief and blind denial and seek to become able to “see” for the sake of their need to experience meaning? What could be worse than being stuck in the middle of opposing sources of madness for a person with a sincere need to experience objective human meaning and purpose and not know how to stand up to madness?

MB: Great questions from Lacewing. In his final 'bad reason' for being an atheist, Tallis suggests that religious belief can 'scare people witless, particularly children, with their doctrines of salvation and damnation'. So, why is it a 'bad reason' ? Read and find out ! ( I've forgotten )

[Walker]

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Dr. Tallis seems to be one of the atheists serving as a purification of the notion of God. No raving emotional denial; just calm questioning. As I see it, his atheism is a reaction to idolatry. Einstein, Simone Weil, and others have expressed the same denial of idolatry.

Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 53).

Idolatry is the result of the lack of conscious attention. This lack produces self justifying imagination including idolatry taking the place of what is beyond our comprehension. Since only a few will take the practice of conscious attention seriously, everything will continue as is. It is the norm for life in Plato's cave.

Those seeking God are seeking evidence of God for verification of God.

The evidence of God hinges on the seeker’s conception of God. (Idolatry)

Those not seeking God do not seek evidence of God.

Why seek God when God is present?