Philosophy Now Forum

Londoner wrote:

uwot wrote:
....How ever no sane atheist would claim to have proof that god does not exist and not many would even go so far as to say they believe that god does not exist. As has been pointed out repeatedly atheism is not a belief in the lack of a god it is the lack of belief in a god

So they wouldn't claim to have any reason for that belief or disbelief? It is just a random fact about their mental state, a state they do not claim to be able to control?

Well, just as no sane atheist would claim to have proof that god doesn't exist, nor would any sane theist claim to have proof that it does. I don't presume to speak for everyone that calls themselves an atheist, but I think it is safe to say that the most common reason that atheists have for not believing in god, is that there is no evidence. It is no more a random fact about the mental state of atheists that they do not think any evidence supports the god hypothesis, than that the mental state of theists is such that they think it does. Exactly how much control would you say you have?

Londoner wrote:

Interjectivist wrote:
So I take it you believe you are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values? I'm sure you have acquired all manner of stories to support the credentials of their alleged transcendence. Of course you do, that's how confirmation bias works. I see you are also wed to the idea that everything in human affairs is a rational matter to be decided upon by application of the intellect. Cute.

I think you are displaying the confirmation bias by assuming that if somebody finds some problems with atheism it can only be because they are a theist.

Lets just say the correlation between theism and the obsession with objective moral values has been extremely strong in my experience.

Londoner wrote: And no, I'm fine with the notion that not everything in human affairs can be decided through the intellect or science. Are you? OK, then if we take that view, then we can't criticise theists because their beliefs cannot be justified through intellect or science.

No I don't think you can get to that conclusion from anything I said. But I have no problem with theists or anyone else realizing their moral beliefs are not entirely rational constructs .. because they're not. Just like everyone else theists still deserve to be criticized when they make statements of empirical fact which cannot be confirmed by observation. I have no problem allowing that God whispers your moral values to you when you are in the warm embrace of prayer. Fine. But if you tell me God actually designed molecules and space and time and all the other 'stuff' of the empirical then expect to be criticized. Likewise with all that afterlife nonsense.

Londoner wrote: As to 'alleged transcendence', the same thing applies. We cannot object to theists' claims for transcendent moral values as being groundless, while making similar claims ourselves.

And I'm not aware of having made any such claims myself. Nor can I think of any reason why I should be contained to make such claims on the basis of my non participation in the cultural rituals and relics of Christianity.

Londoner wrote: When you ask 'So I take it you believe you are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values? my point is that to make moral judgements is to claim 'you are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values'. If that's not right, what do we mean when we say 'Child abuse is wrong'?

I mean it is a practice I cannot condone even between consenting persons so long as one of them is a minor. It means I am willing to ally with others in support of a justice system to impose our view on any who might disagree. I don't need to think "and our way is the eternally right way" in order to take this stand. I and my like-thinking neighbors agree and that is enough. I'll leave the finger waving at monsters like Charles Manson to those who think it makes any difference.

Londoner wrote: It certainly looks like a factual assertion. If you would never say such a thing, then fine, but I do not think all atheists would agree with you, so I was curious how they come to believe they are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values.

This is a curious thing about the theist mindset. Why must theists always feel that they are in alignment with a higher authority to feel justified in taking a stand. I don't need a note from a celestial parent in order to recognize or act on moral matters. In this, while I don't think all theists deserve the criticism, it does appear that religion infantilizes its practitioners.

thedoc wrote:FYI, I have watched this program,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ncHpFaP9c

they have a weekly broadcast that is videoed and posted on youtube. I accept whatever they claim is the atheists position, since I am not one, but I listen to what they say.

Thank you for the link. Having watched it, I'm not sure from that clip what you infer about atheists, other than that they think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I said to Londoner, I don't presume to speak for all atheists, but I'm confident that most would agree.
Given that one of the presenters claims to have risen from the dead, do you think it wise to "accept whatever they claim"?

Immanuel Can wrote:But if Atheism is in any way a rational belief, then it is not "thin": it must have some evidentiary basis.

Hello Mr Can, said person here. Listen, me old mucker, you do realise that you are claiming that it is irrational not to believe in something for which there is no evidence*, don't you?

*To save time it should be pointed out that 'evidence' can be anything you like and interpreted to support whatever claim you fancy: There is a universe, therefore there is a creator. People survive natural disasters/recover from disease, therefore miracles occur. My tooth is no longer under my pillow, therefore a fairy took it. There is nothing that has ever happened that can only be attributed to god; if there were, I would believe in god.

Immanuel Can wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I think that an omnipotent God would not let insults bother him. And I think that an omnibenevolent one would forgive his blasphemers

Jesus said : But I tell you that every careless word that people speak they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment [ Matthew 12 : 36 ]

You will have to forgive me but I am going to stand with his word on the subject rather than with anyones wish to the contrary

You quoted Jesus not God. And are you denying his omnipotence and benevolence? If you are then he is without two of his three major

characteristics [ other one being omniscience ] and cannot lay claim to being an absolute God. And if you are not then my points stand

uwot wrote:

thedoc wrote:FYI, I have watched this program,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ncHpFaP9c

they have a weekly broadcast that is videoed and posted on youtube. I accept whatever they claim is the atheists position, since I am not one, but I listen to what they say.

Thank you for the link. Having watched it, I'm not sure from that clip what you infer about atheists, other than that they think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I said to Londoner, I don't presume to speak for all atheists, but I'm confident that most would agree.
Given that one of the presenters claims to have risen from the dead, do you think it wise to "accept whatever they claim"?

I've watched several of the programs, as I said they do a weekly show, video it and post if on youtube, so I watch occasionally, depending on the title atatched to the show. I would think that the person claiming to have risen from the dead, was being sarcastic, just to get a rise out of the caller. However I do not agree with everything they claim about Christians, so there is much room for interpretation

surreptitious57 wrote: You quoted Jesus not God.

Some Christians believe that if you quote Jesus, you are quoting God, granted not everyone believes this, and it is one point of contention.

The "God" concept collapses into an insurmountable paradox; for that reason ONLY the idea remains forever impervious to "proof" either way making the question of god meaningless.

Immanuel Can wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
You tried to equate atheism with Communism but that is a false equivalence because atheism is not an ideology

This is an example of a half truth. In point of fact there are two ways Atheists talk both modelled earlier in this strand
And they represent two distinct ways of promoting Atheism. They are as follows :

Type 1 : Thin Atheism. This is the kind of which you speak. Its proponents all insist that Atheism is not an ideology because all it stands for is skepticism about God. But this begs an important question : is thin Atheism based on facts and evidence or on nothing at all? If it is the latter then Atheism is truly thin meaning it cannot be criticized for not having the evidence or facts that it does not claim to have. However it is also trivial in the extreme being by their own account merely an expression of the taste preference of people who confess their actual ignorance on the subject How then can it be an intellectual option?

But if Atheism is in any way a rational belief then it is not thin : it must have some evidentiary basis. This would then make it Type 2 : Thick Atheism. This type claims to be founded on reasons and evidences at the very least and sometimes even to warrant epistemological positions
( like Naturalism or Scientist ) and even moral ones ( like say the universal good of being an Atheist )

Now thick Atheism proposes to make its case on facts evidence and logic. But if it does so then it can be expected to produce the relevant facts evidence and logic to justify itself no? However thick Atheism has a heck of a job to do that for by any account the evidence is at least equivocal
if not ( as I would maintain ) rather heavily against Atheism. By no means is the thick Atheist able to make his case rational : and indeed that was the very reason that thin Atheism was attractive in the first place that it appeared to free the Atheist from having to make any rational case. Now it seems he will have to or risk being rightly regarded as holding his disbelief on merely trivial grounds like preference and taste

What Atheists need to do if they admire rationality and consistency is to pick one of these horses and ride it. Jumping madly back
and forth whenever it suits them inevitably puts them in conflict with reason and lands them in the drink. Thick or thin? Which is it?

Your terms thick and thin are more commonly referenced as gnostic and agnostic and
they apply to theism as well as atheism. Now I am an agnostic atheist and here is why

There has been to date precisely zero evidence for the existence of the entity known as God. You are Christian so for the sake of simplicity I will only reference the Abrahamic one - the same one that is worshipped by Muslims and Jews. Now I do not think that this entity actually exists but I cannot prove it which makes me an agnostic atheist. I would argue that of the four positions [ gnostic theism / agnostic theism / gnostic atheism
/ agnostic atheism ] that agnostic atheism is the most logically valid of them all and so therefore the default position

Now Christians and indeed theists in general like to deny or interpret the meaning of evidence when it comes to God. The reason is because they cannot provide any so have to move the goalposts instead. But evidence has a very precise meaning in science. And that meaning is the only one that is acceptable within this context. And that is anything which can be observed inter subjectively. Anything which can be subject to potential falsification and still found to be true. Anything which can be pushed to the absolute limits of the scientific method

And from application of all of this the evidence for God is zero and this is why I am an atheist
And I am an agnostic one because I cannot disprove his existence beyond all reasonable doubt

What's all this nonsense about "evidence" be a deciding factor? How puerile can a person be? There's a saying: "I don’t know who discovered water, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a fish."

Now, if you can't figure out what that means, what the hell are you doing in a philosophy forum?

Londoner wrote:And it doesn't solve the morality problem. The atheist who talks of good and bad must still have some criteria for asserting those judgments. What would that be, since science or maths cannot create transcendental values? Where have they 'moved on' to?

As far as I can tell religious morality largely involves subjugating women and hating gays.

Whatever, you don't need religions for morality. In truth, morality formed organically in groups and later religion took the credit, just as occurred with marriage. Societal norms appear organically in groups and are passed on down generations via cultural transmission, laws and norming. Morality, as with all aspects of culture, will naturally change down the generations.

I find the ideas people have about "atheism" weird and unexpected. Theists have no concept of how little most so-called "atheists" care about their culture wars. They aren't "atheists" - they are just people.

Most don't care about old myths and why should they? Who spares a thought for Zeus, Odin or Osiris? Jesus the resurrected, healing, water-walking spiritual superhero belongs with that group of mythological figures (although Jesus the human teacher may have been a historical figure).

surreptitious57 wrote:You quoted Jesus not God.

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father....I and the Father are One." (John 12:19, John 10:30) Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

And are you denying his omnipotence and benevolence?

Neither. Nor am I denying His justice. Everyone will get no less, no more, and no other than justice requires. Benevolence will say exactly what that is. Justice will require it. Omnipotence will put it into effect. Of all that, you can be absolutely assured.

Immanuel Can wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I favour a secular society over an atheist one any way since it is more free. Rather like the one in which you live

I favour a secular society too but for different reasons. Like Locke I believe in the Theistic primacy of free conscience and would
not ( to parrot Locke ) have men forced to Heaven. So that means I must grant all men and women the option to choose the creed
by which they will live and die - including Atheism

But what warrant is their for such tolerance in Atheism? Its simply not there. The thin Atheists will tell you that Atheism has no content relative
to such subjects and thick Atheists will find they cannot rationally connect mere disbelief in God with any values at all. Either way Atheism is
not a contributor to the free society : in fact you will find that the most free societies are Western post Christian ones like the one you live in

Atheist societies ... there have been some : which one of them would you now hold up as a paragon of freedom equality and civic virtue?

A secular society is simply one in which every one has the freedom to believe or to not believe with no favour being granted to either
Whether you as a Christian think atheism has any virtue or not is totally irrelevant. You have the freedom to practice your belief with
out imposing upon the freedom of others to practice theirs. And so therefore your personal opinion of them is completely superfluous

I said that I favour secular societies over atheist ones so I will give successful examples of them instead : Europe and North America

Immanuel Can wrote: Neither. Nor am I denying His justice. Everyone will get no less, no more, and no other than justice requires. Benevolence will say exactly what that is. Justice will require it. Omnipotence will put it into effect. Of all that, you can be absolutely assured.

Atheists are exempt, of course.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Thick or thin? Which is it?

Your terms thick and thin are more commonly referenced as gnostic and agnostic and they apply to theism as well as atheism. Now I am an agnostic atheist and here is why

I am regularly rebuked by self-declared Atheists for pointing this very thing out to them: that if they are not claiming certainty, then they are only agnostics. I see you are against their view. I agree with you.

There has been to date precisely zero evidence for the existence of the entity known as God.

You mean, "I know of no evidence..." You are simply wrong about that.

agnostic atheism is the most logically valid of them all and so therefore the default position

"Agnostic-Atheism is an oxymoron, like "new antique." Either you claim there IS no God, or that you don't KNOW of any God, but there might be one. If you do the former, you're an Atheist: if you do the latter, you're what Dawkins calls himself -- a "Hard" or "Firm" Agnostic, but not an Atheist.

In fact, Dawkins roundly disavows any association with Atheists. And it's one of the ways he's smarter than some. Atheism is simply rationally indefensible, and he knows it.

But evidence has a very precise meaning in science.

Enlighten me.

Anything which can be subject to potential falsification and still found to be true. Anything which can be pushed to the absolute limits of the scientific method

I'm afraid this description is naive. Falsificationism has been debunked in the 1960s. And "scientific method" is a procedure, not an ideology. It has no view of what it discovers, nor does it claim to discover everything that does or can exist. It is a way of treating available data, issuing in a probabilistic estimate of likelihood. It does not "prove beyond a reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubt is inherent to it. The whole goal of science is to reduce the doubt, not to eliminate it, because that can't be done at all. And in some matters, science can do no work at all (e.g. values, morals, aesthetic estimations, spirituality, selfhood, individuality, etc.) It's just a method for playing around with the physical world -- and a great one for that -- but no more.

And from application of all of this the evidence for God is zero and this is why I am an atheist And I am an agnostic one because I cannot disprove his existence beyond all reasonable doubt

You can't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that I exist, or that your world exists, or that the sky is blue, or that murder is wrong, or that your spouse loves you. Almost nothing you can know, except pace Descartes, your own existence as a floating mind "beyond a reasonable doubt." Set the bar there, and there is nothing else you will ever "know".

If I take you with due seriousness, I think all you really mean is this: "I have no knowledge of evidence of God, and I doubt the existence of any such." And that's suitably honest, if you leave it there. But to pretend more is to overreach: neither reason nor the scientific method gives you what you hope.