Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Frank

The "chink" is that you have for the first time (in my experience) intimated that "reality" may be non-analytic, i.e. not conducive to a categorization into "facts and "opinions". Note that you cannot resort to your lower level adage that this itself is only "an opinion of yours" because that begs the question of what constitutes an "opinion" - get it ?

I would say - like it or not - that your allowance for an "incomprehensible" reality, is transcendent of straight agnosticism and is a step towards the realization that the observer and observed are inseparable. This in turn leads to an examination of the word "existence" and the status of epistemology.

Fresco

At some point, we may do this in English and at that point, I'll respond more completely.

For now, I will only say that I don't think I have deviated here from what I have been saying sicne my earliest postings on Abuzz.

I have absolutely no idea of what reality is -- I have absolutely no idea of what understanding reality would entail.

An ant contemplating the cosmos -- may have a better understanding of the cosmos than a human contemplating reality has of reality.

Frank, Our understandings of the cosmos/universe is very limited, but ants? c.i.

...Les fourmis contemplent leur univers, les hommes contemplent le notre ! ....(doing it in French )

Sing along with me now:

Hello,
Is there anybody in there
Just nod if you can hear me
Is there anyone at home
come on now,
I hear you're feeling down
I can ease your pain
And get you on your feet again
Relax
I'll need some information first
Just the basic facts
Can you show me where it hurts?

There is no pain you are receding
a distant ship smoke on the horizon
You have only coming through in wares
You'r lips more but I can't hear why you're saying
When I was a child I had a fever
My hands fell just like two balloons
Now I've got that feeling again
I can't explain you would not understand
This is not how I am
I have become comfortably numb
O.K.
Just a little pinprick
There'll be no more aaaaaaaah!
But you may feel a little sick
can you stand up?
I do believe its working good
that I'll keep you going through the show
Come on its time to go
There is no pain, you are recading
A distant chip smoke on the horizon
You are only coming through in waves
Your lips move but I can hear what you're saying
When I was a child
I caught a flecting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown
The dream is gone
And I have become
Comfortably numb

Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb

Can one become so grown up, so well read and informed that they lose their childlike wonder at the universe and themselves and become comfortably numb in the dogma of logic and reason?

Is it any wonder at all that the sages speak of one needing to be like a child for one to touch the Divine?

""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hamlet act 1 scene 5

When the a-theists declare that there is no proof of god, they are pushing on a rope.

The tools they use to prove or disprove god are reason and logic. If these fail to yield evidence of god, they often do not admit that these are merely tools which are derived from a spatial/temporal system and a priori "god as creator" lays outside of such a system and is inderminant.

Using logic and reason to prove god is like trying to eat soup with a fork.

To paraphrase that old lady who admonished the famous astronomer speaking about the structure of the universe with " it's turtles, turtles all the way down.""

For me, "Its Flatlands, all the up, and all the way down."

I have no objective proof of god, nor of the multi-dimensional Flatlands where tools for proving god may be realized. Yet I am open to the limitless possibilities of the Kosmos and my own heart……………and most certainly...........

When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now

Maybe, someday I will again, and call it God.

(...I like that "eat soup with a fork" ! ....NB why don't we DRINK soup ?...)

kuvasz

What do you think J.S. Mill means by "truth"? Is this a sort of epiphany or sudden "gestalt" ?

Fresco, le notre is "ours," you're mixing a second person plural with a third person plural . . .

Frank, reality is this, is life, even if it's false( I know this may seem like it lacks of sense, but what I mean is that reality is life, is the interaction with other beings, with yourself, or in it's worst of cases, use this phrase"COGITO ERGO SUM", I think first, then I exist), it doesn't change anything, however you started by saying that you can't know if there is a god or not, & now you finished with saying that you don't know what reality is. So as we think we can take a decision in every matter, agnostics are only not willing to decide in that matter, it's not a matter of the lack of unambiguous evidence, if you want proofs look around, if you wnna ba an atheist you'll the see the creation of a god(s) in the every flower, in every cloud, in every smile, or if you are an atheist you'll things the way they are, complicated, often weird, but absolutely fascinating, it's just a matter of taking a decision.

(Setanta

The intention was "...men contemplate our universe..."which has more stylistic contrast than a repetition of leur)

Frankapisa wrote



And yet a guess or estimate is being made; that there is no knowledge available to you. That is a respectable point of view, but you CANNOT KNOW that it is true; you may have misunderstood, or misinterpreted, many bits of evidence that came your way. At best you can say you are unaware of any evidence, and acknowledge that, as a human being, you are as vulnerable to bias and error as the rest of us, in spite of our best efforts to be objective.

We all stack the deck -usually subconsciously- in support of our beliefs. Portal Star, after providing a standard dictionary definition of God, quickly fleshed it out to include the claim that God "by definition cannot be defined and can be supernatural (beyond the natural, material world, and thus beyond human senses)"

Such a God is, of course, beyond our power to prove or disprove. (He would also be beyond God's, if God existed). My argument is that this is not a satisfactory definition of God, except to an agnostic; neither atheists nor theists are concerned with a God so defined. The God theists believe in, to pick a few key phrases from the dictionary definition, is "the principal object of faith and worship; one that is worshiped, idealized, and followed". This obviously requires a God who interacts, or at one time interacted, with the world, and whose word (or will, or wish) is known; one cannot worship, or follow, an uncommunicative God.

As every theist I know of claims that the will of (his) God is known, and that his God has at one time or another interacted with humans, it is these claims that can be examined, and, as I'm sure you'll agree, these claims which BOTH atheists and agnostics usually find wanting. The theist finds evidence that his or her God exists; the atheist rejects that evidence; and the agnostic rejects the evidence AND creates a new God who, by definition, can neither be proved nor disproved, always remaining beyond our reach.

Not unlike the creation of a new religion, when you think about it, albeit one without dogma.

Absence of proof is, if not proof of absence, at least a very reliable indicator, it seems to me.

I understood that part, Boss, but that's an English language conception of style. My ol' composition and style prof woud have given you a mark off for that one.

Terrific, Greyfan. Much appreciated and enjoyed.

But that is what I am saying, Greyfan.

I said "I do not see enough unambiguous, probative evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess or estimate in either direction."

I DO NOT SEE IT.

If it is there, it is not availble to me.

Now there are many theists who tell me the evidence IS THERE and that I am refusing to see it. They insist the evidence for God is undeniable -- and is invisible only to those who refuse to see it.

I have many atheistic friends who also tell me the evidence IS THERE and that I am refusing to see it. They insist the evidence that there are no gods is as plain as the considerable nose on my face -- and that it is invisible to be only because I refuse to see it -- or even more often, because I do not have the guts to acknowledge it.

Greyfan -- the evidence is not there for me to make a meaningful guess in either direction -- AND I KNOW THAT. I SUSPECT the evidence is not there for theists to make the guess or estimate they are making -- and I SUSPECT the evidence is not there for atheists to make the guess or estimate they are making either.

You are new to these discussions, Dux, or you would realize that mostly, I state my agnosticsim as: I do not know the answers to Ultimate Questions, which includes but is not limited to: "Is there a God?" "What is the nature of reality?" and the like.

Your comments about reality being what we see here ("it is this, life") are simply not well conceived -- and not especially intellectual.

I certainly do not know what the REALITY is -- and I very strongly suspect you don't either.




That is one of the worst run-on sentences you have posted -- and you have posted some doozies. It is so convoluted, I've given up trying to fathom what you were trying to say in it.

In any case, just because you think you can take your observations and make meaningful decisions, guesses, or estimates about reality and about the existence or non-existence of gods -- does not mean it can actually be done. I don't thing you can do it -- but I know I cannot do it.

If you want to think you are intelligent and perceptive enough to do what you suppose I cannot do -- so be it. More power to you. If you do, however, I personally think you are deluding yourself.

But I cannot speak for you.

I do not know the nature of Ultimate Reality -- Ultimate Questions -- or any of the other mysteries of life and existence.

God is a construct of the human mind. If some very ancient people had never said, "Why did this happen?" "I don't know." "Perhaps there's a God did it." We wouldn't have this thread right now. Then we would all be atheists and much happier.

And now, from the peanut gallery:

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."
-- Clarance Darrow

"Truth in matters of religion is simply the opinion that has survived."
-- Oscar Wilde

"Religions are like fireflies. They require darkness in order to shine."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
-- Richard Dawking

"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration - courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth."
-- H. L. Mencken

"Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing."
-- Jean-Paul Satrte


and, last, but by no means least . . .

"To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition."
-- Woody Allen

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder. '
-- Homer Simpson

The very last one is priceless. c.i.

No wonder Homer wins all the popularity contests for well liked Americans.

Frank

We are in agreement on more points then not, I think.

Your explanation of why you are an agnostic is cogent, and, given your feelings, it would obviously be wrong for you to adopt either a theist or atheist position; but what is missing now is the proof of why agnosticism is a more logical stance than atheism or theism.

I understand that it is the best position for you, but where then is the leg up over the other positions, given that they reflect the understanding of their adherents as well?

I am curious about your take on the definition of God part of my last post as well --the definition of God is crucial to my own understanding of whether I define myself as an atheist or an agnostic.

Please excuse any delays in replying. I am unable to get to these boards every day, though I try.

truth
Just discovered this thread. I am an atheist, not because I can prove there is no God, but I see no evidence or interpretation that justifies the effort to try to do so. I am not an evangelical atheist, an activist who feels obliged to expose the falsity of theism (or polytheism). I would if I could, but I know there is no chance of weaning theists from their sacred fiction, at least not by me and not now. Someday they will "evolve" past their fiction. I may, therefore be characterized as a passive atheist, an atheist not because I have a great passion to be such, but because I see no reason to be otherwise.