Atheism

@layman,

layman wrote:

There are serious questions about whether he is actually "sophisticated" in his analysis of, and pronouncements about, his personal theology, but let's leave those aside.

No serious questions of this kind. To him, the god hypothesis is that there exists (at least) one supernatural intelligence that has created the universe. His entire theology is that the god hypothesis is very probably false. Theologies don't get any less sophisticated than that. And this needn't be a bad thing. If indeed there are no goods, the theologies analysing them should be trivially simple, because they have nothing to analyze.

layman wrote:

For Dawkins, I think it comes down to something like this:

I think you haven't read The God Delusion with much attention.

layman wrote:

1. We don't need to posit the existence of a god for anything.

True so far.

layman wrote:

We can find reliable answers to all relevant questions in nature, for example, in neo-darwinistic evolutionary theory, as concerns the issue of "how we came to be."

Dawkins doesn't say this anywhere in The God Delusion, nor anywhere else I'm aware of. You seem quicker to judge than you are to read here. What Dawkins does say repeatedly is that even if science didn have a good track record of figuring things out, postulating a god would still be unnecessary, because the evidence for one would still be poor.

layman wrote:

Do I buy this argument? No, not personally.

No problem, though it's generally good practice to consider the actual argument, not just hearsay about it, before making buying decisions either way. You might want to try it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not do any "believing" at all, Layman.... I am asserting that unequivocally.

Hmm, that's a somewhat curious concoction of claims. In virtually all accepted definitions of "knowledge," belief is a held to be necessary element. The general consensus seems to be that you cannot seriously "unequivocally assert" anything without necessarily also believing it (unless you are consciously lying, of course).

Quote:

Since I do not do any "believing"...obviously I do not "believe" it

Well, here's another tautology. What is one to make of it? My first thought would be along these lines: Your self-proclaimed lack of belief may simply be a product of a highly idiosyncratic notion of what "belief" entails.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

I think you haven't read The God Delusion with much attention.

I haven't read it at all, Thomas, and, truth be told, I don't intend to. I was merely responding to a question where I used Dawkins as an example. I said "I think" his positions comes down to something like this... I don't proclaim to be an expert on Dawkins' theology.

Quote:

No problem, though it's generally good practice to consider the actual argument

I could have left him nameless and responded to Frank's question in the same way. It was really just a hypothetical "argument" and I could just as well have made it a "hypothetical person" making the argument. I just thought it would make it a little more concrete to throw in some name.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I could have left him nameless and responded to Frank's question in the same way.

I wish you had. (But as Olivier5 so kindly reminded me, nobody cares what I wish. Smile

) Making stuff up about a real person does not make a hypothetical argument concrete.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

For Dawkins, I think it comes down to something like this:

1. We don't need to posit the existence of a god for anything. We can find reliable answers to all relevant questions in nature, for example, in neo-darwinistic evolutionary theory, as concerns the issue of "how we came to be." (Extreme arrogance on his part, to be sure, but.....).

But nothing. The fact that no god is need to explain anything (and I am willing to accept it as fact for these purposes) is not even evidence that there is no god…let alone a logically derived conclusion derived from empirically proved anything.

Number 1 does not even get on the field of play.

Quote:

2. Using Occam's razor as a guiding principle, it is then senseless to posit an unnecessary god.

Occam’s razor is one of the most useless, illogical philosophical stances ever devised. Using it, we would conclude that the Earth is a stationary object around which the tiny dots of lights (which would still be only tiny dots of lights) circle at night…and the large fire (it is not a fire) circled during the day.

And even if I were to concede that it is senseless to posit an unnecessary god…that would not be evidence, let alone a ” logically” derived “conclusion” based on empirical evidence.

So number 2 does not get on the field either.

Quote:

3. Furthermore, the very existence of extreme evil in the world empirically disproves the existence of the type of god that most people on this planet believe in. This suggests that the "desire" to believe in god, not the facts themselves, is what leads people to believe in that unnecessary hypothesis.

a) There is no need to suppose that because “the type of god most people on this planet believe in” is the only kind of god that can exist. This does nothing whatever to establish that there are no gods…this does not even rise to the level of evidence that no gods exist.

b) I would be willing to place a big bet that every god ever posited on planet Earth is a creation of humans…even if I did not speculate, as Dawkins is doing, on the motivation for the structure.

None of this comes even close to a scenario in which, through evidence we can empirically prove, a highly sophisticated, intelligent person can logically conclude that there are no gods involved in REALITY.

Quote:

Do I buy this argument?

I certainly hope not, because as a response to my request for a scenario as outlined above…this is a terrible failure...almost a joke as an attempt.

Quote:

No, not personally. But nor do I believe that it is nothing more than a "blind guess."

If Darwin used this crap to suggest an intelligent, sophisticated argument that there are no gods…then it does not even deserve to be called a “blind guess.” It is an embarrassment to logical thinking…and I suspect you realize that.

Take another shot at it, Layman. Create the scenario on your own…no matter how bizarre…that includes a logically derived conclusion that there are no gods using evidence we can empirically prove.

Or…as an alternative…just acknowledge that YOUR OPINION agrees with mine, that it cannot be done.

0 Replies

@layman,

If you want to ask me about my opinions, my guesses, my estimations...or anything like that...do so.

I will gladly share with you my opinions, guesses, estimations and so forth.

I will not disguise the fact that I am making a guess, estimation or offering an opinion...by claiming it to be a belief.

Mostly, none of this matters...but in the matter of the existence or non-existence of gods...it matters very much. Since it does...I have decided not to use the expression elsewhere.

If you have a problem with the way I work my opinions, guesses, or estimations, Layman...not much I can do about that.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you have a problem with the way I work my opinions, guesses, or estimations, Layman...not much I can do about that.

Franks way of saying that he likes to hear himself talk.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Or…as an alternative…just acknowledge that YOUR OPINION agrees with mine, that it cannot be done.

I've already agreed with that, Frank, and have said so. That really wasn't the issue.

Quote:

I will not disguise the fact that I am making a guess, estimation or offering an opinion...by claiming it to be a belief.

As I've indicated, I fail to grasp the distinction you intend to make here. For me the terms are all synonymous to the extent (but only to the extent) that there is no pretense to actual "knowledge." Nor do they seem to be mutually exclusive to me, as you seem to imply.

In my way of looking at things, I can have what I concede to be no more than an opinion AND also believe it. I don't see how adding the "belief" "disguises" anything, as you seem to perceive.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Point of clarification: Suppose a bookie offers odds of 1:999 that a particular horse will win the race. According to your usage of words:

Is the bookie making a guess?
Do you agree or disagree with the proposition, "the bookie doesn't believe that the horse will win"?
Do you think the proposition in #2 disguises that the bookie is making a guess?

I'm asking because I don't understand why you seem to think that saying "I believe X" disguises that the speaker is making a guess about X.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

So you no longer believe in what you just said?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

I'm asking because I don't understand why you seem to think that saying "I believe X" disguises that the speaker is making a guess about X.

I said the same thing, at the same time, but your question was much better designed (I really didn't ask a question) for getting a direct clarification, than was my "observation."

Good question from Thomas, Frank.

0 Replies

Woo-hoo . . . there's more poop here now than one finds at the dog park . . .

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

What about Eastern philosophies and eastern religions?

What about them ?

Quote:

People are going to believe what ever they are going to believe religious based or not.

No, people are going to follow their instincts . Religious beliefs have a strong basis in our moral instincts .

Quote:

How 'bout this - my morality is based on my empathy, compassion and reasoning skills? Perfect..no. Flawed...yes. It works for me.

Morality is based in instincts . Chimpanzees have very similar morals . Empathy and compassion are parts of emotion which is the upper level of instincts .

Quote:

I think we pick and choose according to our own understanding and perceived needs and abilities.

That is the basis, yes, but we only do so to satisfy our instincts .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

uote:
What about Eastern philosophies and eastern religions?
What about them ?

Quote:
People are going to believe what ever they are going to believe religious based or not.
No, people are going to follow their instincts . Religious beliefs have a strong basis in our moral instincts .

Quote:
How 'bout this - my morality is based on my empathy, compassion and reasoning skills? Perfect..no. Flawed...yes. It works for me.
Morality is based in instincts . Chimpanzees have very similar morals . Empathy and compassion are parts of emotion which is the upper level of instincts .

Quote:
I think we pick and choose according to our own understanding and perceived needs and abilities.
That is the basis, yes, but we only do so to satisfy our instincts .

I think the more our brain has develop the less we rely on instinct.
Just guessing.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

It is my understanding that Christianity is the religion of Catholics, Protestants Baptist etc

Yes, mine too .

Quote:

The Bible is the Book of Christianity and considered the word of god..is it not?

Depends on the branch of Christianity . Catholics belief it is the inspired word from God...it is not literally true but is a guideline for our lives . The OT is to be regarded as a history of a people and a version that was improved upon by the NT .

Quote:

I have heard many times that Christians get their morals from this Bible? This book is suppose to dictate their behavior?

I cant speak for all the versions of Christianity, but anyone who gets their morals from a book is considered a fool by Catholics . You get your morals through examining your soul and determining what is right . Certainly the Bible provides inspiration and thought exercises .

Quote:

I guess the better question is where does this inalienable right come from for you?

Straight from religion . It borrowed it from our instincts, but has added practical experience from particular environments . The criticism of the OT is that it describes laws that are no longer relevant and this is certainly true . The idea of an agnostic coming up with an inalienable right is a bit bizarre . Religion, citing God, has said there are things we cant do...murder, rape, jealousy, etc...and these are based on God's law (social instincts) which therefore implies we have inalienable rights . The word inalienable rights was most famously used in the Declaration of independence and was used with 'our creator' . This is a reference of course to God but could be taken as a indirect reference to our true nature, our instincts .

So the sequence would be :
1) We have instincts to be a member of a successful group by recognising commonality of genetics and compromising to at least save some similar to ours if not our own .

2) The breakdown of small groups and the rise of cities destroyed natural law from the group leaders and replaced it with an alpha male leadership, the King . This was a serious set back .

3) Our understanding of the world increased but so did our questions . Religion stepped in as science to understand those questions , and in so doing reigned back the excesses of the alpha leadership although becoming corrupted at the same time with its own version .

4) Now we had alpha leadership in State and Religion but soon both were to be answerable to God, the highest authority because we had inalienable rights .

5) Religion was eventually replaced by a better version of science though it is considerably slower . This still left many questions the new slow version has not and maybe never will get around to answering .

6) Our increasingly complex understanding of the world led to law based right and wrong....fine tuning for the complex environment based on instincts now that the small group was incredibly large . We can analyse our chances of the success of a crime and balance that against the reward . Thus the poor are more likely to find crime justified by the same moral yardstick we all use, which is our genetic survival at all cost .

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

I think the more our brain has develop the less we rely on instinct.
Just guessing.

That is certainly the hope of most people but we tend to use our higher level instincts called emotions almost continuously . That our instincts are still there and need to be satisfied is obvious in the chemistry of the blood - adrenalin, hormones, etc . You can also physically demonstrate how these instincts evolved . You must satisfy an instinct if it has priority . Example: you may be hungry but if you are drowning the need to breath over rides it . Then you are safe and can breath again, but a large carnivore is about to attack . Then you are safe and you go back to hunger . If we didnt have instincts we wouldnt survive the first crises in our lives . Similarly it can be demonstrated that a group has a survival advantage and to exist in that group we need unwritten laws, morality .

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Still your bases for your religion comes down from a belief in god.The point remains without proof of existence your argument is nothing more than a house of cards.
Your deductions and assumptions are still depended on the premise of something you cannot prove.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

Still your bases for your religion comes down from a belief in god.The point remains without proof of existence your argument is nothing more than a house of cards.
Your deductions and assumptions are still depended on the premise of something you cannot prove.

You have missed the point . It has nothing to do with God, it has to do with religion and I would hope I dont have to prove religion exists .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

You have missed the point . It has nothing to do with God, it has to do with religion and I would hope I don;t have to prove religion exists .

NO, I didn't miss the point. And no]I know religion exist.

I wouldn't classify emotions as higher instincts. Animals have emotions. Emotions are just what they are: motivating forces.

It is how we handle them, interpret them and what we do with them that matter.

If fear (being the emotion) and ignorance caused us to invent religion as a coping mechanism that makes more sense to me.

1 Reply

I-Anus first babbles about inalienable rights, but when i point out that the Declaration of Independence has no force in law, he begins babbling about it being some kind announcement of intent. Hundreds and hundreds of British soldiers and marines having been shot down by the American militia would, i suggest have well signaled their intentions. But that is no reference to the idea of inalienable rights, about which he had previously been babbling. This sort of incoherence is typical of I-Anus, who cannot carry on a coherent conversation once he gets in his hateful hysteria mode.

Even when he is more calm, all he does is puke up one unsubstantiated claim after the other, as he has been doing in the last few posts. Does he expect people to sit at his feet to receive his pearls of wisdom? I sincerely hope he's holding his breath.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know