Atheism

Actually Beth Ed's comment on the beautiful sunrise constitutes a claim that he has soul because only a being with a soul could have the concept "beautiful".

Which is an odd claim to make as he thinks we humans are just a part of Darwin's tree of life like worms and rats. Thus it is logical that he thinks all animals have souls.

It is well known that the fundie atheist, as opposed to the poseur atheist, eschews such concepts as beauty. Often so insistently that one has to wonder if it is themselves they are trying to persuade.

I can do it myself if I'm in the mood. Music as nothing but a cacophony of sound made bt scratching on strings. Maybe "cacophony" is out of place too.

You can say the same about the flying pink elephant, but I highly doubt you will give the flying pink elephant the same level of plausibility.

Atheism is the default position, not agnosticism, atheism is. Agnostics just say they can not know, but they are being silly. Sure you can know, other wise you must be agnostic about every single myth. They must think that Zeus might exist, or Ra or gremlins or even the flying pink elephant. But they don't consider these other aspects. It is as if they have made up their mind about all other myths but leave out this one specific one. They are making a contradiction.

Just like Ray Comfort says that he does not believe in the existence of Zeus. How is it he knows that Zeus dose not exist? It is because he just chooses to.

Agnostics are just choosing not to acknowledge the fact that there is absolutely NO basis for the existence of any gods. Existence itself is not proof of any existing entity, being, thing, that you would refer to as god.

If you are agnostic towards the concept of god, then you have to be agnostic towards everything to maintain consistency. Therefore you must be agnostic towards the existence of the flying pink elephant.

I dont believe in the pink phantom, Zeus or any other god you might like to mention. Did I say I believed in god? I dont think so. If the description defies logic then it does not exist. I dont think its possible to describe god or know even if he exists but I wont take the dogmatic stance and say it does not exist. You cant prove by your logic it does not, only if I make a claim of knowing or describing a particular god. You might not like my position but you cant logically deny it.

You are forgetting that "God" is an established social concept with respect to contemporary social interactions. Zeus etc are not, therefore the extrapolation of "agnosticism" to such concepts is irrelevant.

Hi spendius !
We do appreciate symmetry from left to right side in faces for instance...
The concept of beautiful may well derive in evolution from concepts like appealing and attractive...
...the sun light is obviously naturally familiar...and all this things although substantially different in man given is sophistication as a species could not come out of nowhere, could they ? What do you think ? Are they emerging property´s out of critical mass ?

Then substitute Ganesh.

it would have been just as easy to say that you don't know

I wouldn't be in the least surprised should that prove to be the case.



And in other aspects of nature. Which reminds me of an old joke about the Rorschach inkblot tests which I had better refrain from repeating here on account of my sense of proper decorum.

I don't think we ought to pursue Ed's reaction to a sunrise he happened to witness. It could get complicated.

Of course I don't know Beth. It isn't news. Nobody knows. Has a proton a sense of beauty? Nobody can answer that either.

Aquinas defined beauty as that which pleases and the daisies in my lawns behave as though pleased with the way the earth turns towards the sun at 1,000 mph but could each daisy express the concept to its pals. Whether protons in nuclear explosions are pleased with making a big bang I really do not know.

It's a very simple point you are insisting upon but I think you would be better served by not pursuing it philosophically and confine it, if you must, to those of your acquaintance who are not philosophically oriented.

Sunrises are bad news for those who, say, market night vision goggles or have to get out of bed to go to work. Which in Acquinas' conjectures must then be ugly. They don't present wrinkles in that good a light either.

Hence the subdued lighting in restaurants which specialise in intimate dinners.

Okay what about dragons? Or unicorns? Or how about the flying pink elephant? These are contemporary social interactions. Yet I bet you'll try to say the same BS about it. What it really comes down to is just blind picking and choosing just because they want one to be real and the other to not be.

It makes you one of most of us athiests, (never mind what the dictionary says), that is, that we simply do not believe.

Xcris has his own agenda. People without theism do not extol certainties. They simply do not buy stuff.

Get over it.

I just saw some website pumping all about the glories of agnosticism. Give me a break, it is all posited on what most of us atheists think by default.

There is this pump up stuff going on that most atheists don't give a hoot about. Trust me on that.

Personally, agnosticism is a softer way of saying scientific atheist. The whole basis of science is doubt, so while I believe in the possibility of God, I also believe in the possibility that we're pink cows, so it's meaningless.

I don't usually "let loose" here - I've yet to find my niche. But on this issue I'll lay bare my feelings on the general tone of this (and other like) conversations on a point I believe to be of utmost import. I beg your indulgence here; words are clumsy contraptions we limp about on to transfer something so delicate as a mental idea, they fail me as often as they serve. In any case...

Being an atheist is, for me, the most honest place I can be. It's one of humility that admits there is no belief in something for which I see no basis. Its plain and simple; humble and honest. I don't stand in judgment of anyone's belief system, nor do I want them to critique mine. We hold these ideals within us, they color our view of the world and stand in support of our values.

I value people, respect, family, honesty, courtesy and my connection to every living thing on this planet. Not knowing - not having any belief system of mystique or powerful, overarching forces controlling <whatever> - allows me to feel a member of my living community without diverting the most intimate personal energies towards some undefined ideal. While this works fine for a lot of folks, it doesn't for me. When I feel the pangs of judgmentalism; I squash them - they have NO place in my life; neither the feelings themselves, nor the pain these bring.

Can we appreciate these differences? Can we be OK with the idea that we don't have the same conception of "what is"? Or must we fiddle, fight, hook, argue, degrade, put down and otherwise piss fits about our differences? How petty is this - how low in such a dank place have we fallen when such a distinction is cause for casting dispersions on others?

Its fine to talk about these; but our fixation on the label itself has really gotten out of hand. Like the mental poison from the existence of political parties there comes the "My Team/Your Team" mindset; this differentiation between "us" and "them" where all "ours" are deified and all "theirs" are vilified. In the history of our species, most of the most abhorrently destructive episodes are born from just such a mindset; the one that pits "us" against "them". Simple nomenclatures they are, nothing more. That they've become infused with enough vitriol to fling about hobbles yet another verbal distinction; saddling it with emotionally loaded innuendo.

All of you who can't leave the issue alone without insults, dispersions and innuendo, I have some advice for you.

1. Find something better to occupy your time. We have enough divisiveness in our species without your fussing about.
2. Secondly, an exercise: Get up each morning, go to the mirror and repeat this three times:



I believe that in each believer's heart is something very special; very important that needs to be left alone. Pass it, non believers, look at it and admire honesty without gradations of condescension. Those who bear this expose a vulnerable part of their innermost thoughts; ask about it, wonder at it, congratulate it but don't poop on it.

I also believe that in the atheist's heart is a silent pain that comes with the realization that, "...this is all that I am". Believers, don't throw rocks at it - when someone admits their lack of belief that's not license for you insult their morals or typecast them into some obscure, half-baked ethical typecast. Talk with them, share with them, but don't try to infuse your own dreams onto a mind not your own.

Or are we all so hopelessly insecure, so completely bereft of respect, that we must hammer at those who think differently?

Thanks

I understand your point of view - in contrast to some now rampant agnostics who seem to be taking over quiet atheist territory, defining atheists as they go. That may or may not have been in the New York Times in the last day or two, no imprimatur.

I remain appalled at people who have been to school or read a book or two to define atheists.

Excellent post, Kethil. But the topic must be important to me. The very first encounter I had with online philosophy was in response to The God Delusion. I felt I had to speak out against it. So I do have to ask myself, what motivates me? I am not an atheist, but not a biblical believer, either. I guess most would say 'New Age' is my profile.I don't want my interlocuters to believe anything. I don't see myself as a believer, in the traditional sense. But I feel obliged to warn people there is something nasty at the bottom of the atheist garden. I think there is a real danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 'What baby?" some will say. "There's only bathwater". And that is where I will differ with them. I don't have any problems with those who don't believe anything religious, but I do with evangelical atheism. I think why I feel like that is that they must insist that anything spiritual must be subjective. It can't be real, by definition, in their view. So it is one thing to say 'I don't know'. Another to say 'all religious or spiritual people must be delusional'. And that is very close to what the evangatheists are saying.

I have studied a lot of philosophical arguments for the reality of God. On the whole, I think they are much more convincing than the opposing views. It seems to me that all of the really serious atheist arguments cannot help but ending up with nihilism. It is one thing to deny the anthropomorphic representations of God, and the mainstream religious views built around them. It is another to deny all of the various mystical and scientific understanding of deity, and the spiritual traditions of the East as well. Denying anything spiritual - this is what I react against with Dawkins, Dennett, Weinberg, and the other evangelical atheists.

But as for those who simply have no religious views, I have no particular issue.

I object to this claim that agnostics are atheists pure and simple. There is subtle difference that cant be dismissed so easily. Atheists will want to have a god they can dismiss and logically destroy through debate. The majority will not accept that a god could exist , they refuse the notion, the very idea. Atheists will never give the idea any credence ,they react with the same boring arguments. I can argue like an atheist on described gods but I can argue for an unconceived god, could , would an atheist do such a thing?

While theists react with these crappy prejudices?

W W

So U want a New God ? I looked to the Past to project my notions of God...
since I was eleven and made my trip to Cornwall/Tintagel !

You are falling into the same trap, pink cows are not a logical description of a creator , so why mention it? Its meaningless to mention pink unicorns, Zeus , Jehovah, Christ, Allah..but it is not pointless to debate the possibility of a creative force. You imagine a sentinel figure with a conscious ability similar to ours and that gives you reason , rightly, to question its existance. I have never found an adequate reason to believe in a god but I wont deny it , just because its beyond my comprehension.