Atheism

I must be a theist then because my god is truth, the sad thing is that I do not know all of the truth but that's OK I will continue to worship truth anyways!

rl wrote, . How does one worship truth? Please explain.

That is what I value more than anything, I give my life trying to understand it and what it means to know the truth! Why do you think I like the scientific method, logic and reason?

Now back to reality! I love my family but I worship truth and I try to build my world around it.

You didn't answer his question.

He has no answers. He just enjoys using words like truth, logic, reason, ethics, the scientific method and assorted other high sounding concepts as if mentioning such things qualifies him to be considered a superior person.

I did not answer his question in a way that was satisfying to you but none the less he did get an answer.

I did forget to mention about the alter I am building to the truth so that I will have a place to prey! lol

Spendius How often do I need to tell you that I am the student and you all are my teachers? That is not a joke!

Well watch out who your teachers are mate.

spendi, It's too late for you, mate.

In the December 2004 / January 2005 issue of Free Inquiry, Paul Edwards writes:

(Bertrand) Russell wavered between calling himself an agnostic and describing himself as an atheist. He evidently did not attach too much importance to this distinction, but he made it clear that if he was to be classified as an agnostic, it would have to be in a sense in which an agnostic and an atheist are "for practical purposes, at one."

In the television interview mentioned earlier, the interviewer asked Russell, "Do you think it is certain that there is no such thing as God or simply that it is just not proven?" "No," Russell answered, "I don't think it is certain there is no such thing — I think it is on exactly the same level as the Olympic gods, or the Norwegian gods; they also may exist, the gods of Olympus and Valhalla. I can't prove they don't, but I think that the Christian God has no more likelihood than they had. I think they are a bare possibility."

He explained his views more fully in an interview published in Look magazine in 1953. An agnostic, in any sense in which he can be regarded as one, Russell said, "may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice."
Russell's position here is probably shared by most atheists. They don't believe in the existence of any gods and, insofar as they allow for the remote possibility that some sort of god exists, it's about as strong of a possibility as the existence of the ancient Greek or Norse gods. The existence of such gods doesn't appear to be logically impossible, but it also doesn't appear to be empirically likely, either. Lots of things are possible but not plausible or likely.

The atheistic position is difficult for many people to accept — they are convinced that their god exists, but they are no more or less convinced of this than people used to be convinced of the existence of Greek and Norse gods. Theists today would probably regard belief in those gods as absurd, but why is it any more absurd than their own beliefs? Frankly, it's not — their beliefs are more common right now, but that doesn't make them more rational or justified.

Exactly. I put it this way...

I'm an atheist... well actually no, to be clear, I'm really an agnostic with extreme atheistic tendencies.

It's not a matter of an answer which would satisfy me--C.I. asked how one worships truth, and you did not answer that question.

The only quibble i have with this position is that i put god or gods of any flavor on the same level of probability as the tooth fairy, or fairies, pixies and elves.

leprechauns?

Not since i gave up the booze . . .

I see it slightly different than Russell myself. There is no room for agnosticism in my view.

Well, the problem that i have with agnostics is that they generally (if they answer honestly) are not agnostic about Zeus, and Frig, and Vulcan and Odin. They are generally not agnostic about fairies, pixies and elves. They are selectively agnostic, and carried to the logical extreme, agnosticism is a ridiculous position to attempt to stake out as morally superior.

The agnostics that say their view does not differ appreciatively from mine seem a bit confused. You can't agree with me if you don't agree with me.

The problem with Russell's position is that it makes no sense from a materialist perspective. A belief in God exists in material form in the mind of believers. Thus that God exists and causes effects. A belief that God does not exist also is a material object but is dependent on the idea of God as it is absurd to not believe in something which is not envisaged. Thus God is present in the belief that God does not exist. An atheist is therefore someone who has never heard of God and who cannot envisage the concept and thus cannot talk about it.

The idea that an atheist and an agnostic are "for practical purposes" the same is sheer sophistry. I'm sorry to say that Russell was so overwhelmed by a sense of self importance, and of being interviewed on television when so many of us are not interviewed, that his head was continually spinning and the circumstance demanded that he say something that sounded philosophical. He produced an ego tweet in other words.

A taxi driver reported that he had had Russell in his cab and said to him, "what's it all about then Bertie?" and that he didn't know.

The idea that a logical impossibility, that a duck might ask you the way to the nearest pond, say, and an empirically improbability, are not comparable because an improbability allows for a possibility.

The statement: "Lots of things are possible but not plausible or likely." is meaningless because in an infinite universe anything possible is certain to happen.



That is another blatant sophistry which relies on the listener not paying attention. It starts with the "atheistic position" and then drops it in favour of an irrelevant comparison with other gods. The atheist needs to be certain that gods do not exist in the same way that he is certain that a duck won't ask for directions in Swahili.

I don't consider beliefs in Greek or Norse gods, or any gods, as absurd.

The whole of ed's post is nonsense and betrays a lack of understanding of religious beliefs. Beliefs are practical tools evolved to fit the circumstances the believers are in.

What the atheist wants, or should want, is that ideas about gods are eradicated so that they can never enter the material matter of minds. They become ideas that can no longer be thought of. Only then would gods cease to exist. They couldn't even be "thoughtcrimes". Thoughtcrime is a transition phase to engineer the eradication. The libraries being burned and those burning them liquidated.

God is the collective wisdom of mankind personified and increasing mobility of peoples geographically makes one God necessary.

Atheism is thus resolved into the state of rejecting the wisdom of mankind and it is usually associated with that part of the collective widom pertaining to sexual regulation. But not always.

Arguments about tooth fairies and FSMs and Greek and Norse gods are strictly for the kiddywinks and those making such fatuous arguments must think that their listeners are still in nappies. (diapers).

Which risks me having ci. saying "You're still in nappies", I know, but I can handle that easily enough.

spendi wrote,

They are called "idols," and god forbade it.