A Plea for Atheists

[Sideline]

I guess I did get a little preachy there, that has become my nature now. Doing so also made me stray from the main point I was making.

No problem.

That point being that there is a God.

Well, I disagree.

It is just a reality that everything that exists was put here by something beyond us. I know the classic argument of “then what created God?” (I used to think I made it up). I guess it seems illogical to me that when it comes to our existence there was no “creator” involved. (I do not mean creator as Creationists mean it.)

To quote Adam Savage of the Mythbusters, “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” I haven’t seen one reason to accept your view on reality. I can’t see that you’ve put forward a single reason to do so.

I understand the ‘typical’ atheist response to everything I am saying and feel free to offer your individual spin on it, that is why I started the thread after all. Also, I am trying to remember the mind-frame of when I was so thoroughly convinced there was no God.

I’m not sure if this is a typical response, but to me all I am reading from you is, “God is, because He is.” Well, I don’t think so. I’m not sure what else there is to say unless you want to debate the merits of any particular theory.

An atheist could still have all the same views of how they live their life and still accept that something indeed caused us to be. They do not have to like it, but it is true. I sometimes wonder if it is the too often religious perspective of God that causes people to disbelief rather than mere reason. (I am not saying you do not use your ability to reason.)

I could believe in anything I like, but why would I? Occam’s Razor is usually described as, “The simplest theory is almost always right.” The way I read it, it should be, “One should prefer the theory with fewer entities.”

If I can explain everything in the world without a god, why would I add a god. Your approach seems to be that I should believe in a god unless I can disprove that a god exists. But why would I even add that idea to the equation?

In my non-theistic faith, humanity is NOT the focus of the Universe, the reason for its existence. That right there changes the way we look at things. Many religions start with the assumption that it is all about humanity, but when you don’t make that assumption, a lot of pieces fall into place. It certainly allows me to function in a very different way, as a piece of a magnificent whole, rather than as the focus of a demented deity.

Very well put.

 

[dok]

Atheists, do you have the power to make personal choices in your life, like freely deciding whether you eat Wheaties or corn flakes for breakfast, or are all of your thoughts and actions determined by a sequence of causes and effects in the physical universe?

 

[Sideline]

Atheists, do you have the power to make personal choices in your life, like freely deciding whether you eat Wheaties or corn flakes for breakfast, or are all of your thoughts and actions determined by a sequence of causes and effects in the physical universe?

I don’t know, but I imagine it’s a bit of both. Why?

 

[Isambard]

One thing I think about though is:
You said we are all here because our parents chose to have sex and so on and so on down the line through history. Meaning none of us actually chose to be here. And something would have had to come into existence without the use of sex…right? So…with regards to evolution…at what point did inanimate objects begin to become independant beings? I guess this would lead into a big evolutionary discussion, one I do not feel like expounding upon because it would involve some speculation…Just a thought!

You need to remember that evolution (origin of species) is different from ambiogenisis (origin of life).

There are some competing theories on ambiogensis, but perhaps thisll be informative

youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

 

[dok]

I don’t know, but I imagine it’s a bit of both. Why?

Well, the reason I ask about free will is that I would like to point out what might be called the dark underbelly of atheism and pure materialism as espoused by the likes of Dawkins and Dennett. A careful reading of the latter’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea will reveal that this is a philosophy of utter, complete mechanism, spiced with a dash of randomness. There is no place for personal free will; it has the same status as God, a (supposedly) fictitious, supernatural entity that exerts a power of willing over the physical world.

You cannot be an atheist and believe in any particle of your own free will – if you did have such a belief, you would be believing in at least one little god … that being you.

 

[Sideline]

You cannot be an atheist and believe in any particle of your own free will – if you did have such a belief, you would be believing in at least one little god … that being you.

And why do you think that?

 

[dok]

And why do you think that?

Take a look at Dennett’s book – he’s a top-notch philosopher and a great writer – and you finally get yourself in the picture. You’re part of the universe, too. If you can exert a free, non-physically-caused will that controls the physical world, then, by definition, you have god-like powers. Dennett develops the idea that our apparent free will is itself an illusion derived from an ongoing evolution-like process at the neural level.

Your alternative to assigning yourself some godly powers is complete mechanism mixed with quantum-level randomness. You’re just a bot.

 

[Sideline]

Take a look at Dennett’s book – he’s a top-notch philosopher and a great writer – and you finally get yourself in the picture. You’re part of the universe, too. If you can exert a free, non-physically-caused will that controls the physical world, then, by definition, you have god-like powers. Dennett develops the idea that our apparent free will is itself an illusion derived from an ongoing evolution-like process at the neural level.

Your alternative to assigning yourself some godly powers is complete mechanism mixed with quantum-level randomness. You’re just a bot.

I haven’t read Dennet, but he’s on my list. So far the best book I’ve read on how the mind works is Stations of the Mind by William Glasser. He called the human mind a servo-control mechanism with the ability to operate on feedback. Essentially, a program that is able to adapt to new information.

But what of it? Why would I care if on some cosmic level what I perceive as free will is just the product of natural laws? I really don’t see how this matters.

Believing in a god won’t give me free will if I don’t already have it. Where do you get the idea that it’s a dark underbelly?

 

[dok]

Believing in a god won’t give me free will if I don’t already have it. Where do you get the idea that it’s a dark underbelly?

You kind of got it backwards… believing in free will is what equates to you believing in at least one godlike entity, which is you. Many people believe in another God. There’s no atheism on either path.

If you don’t mind accepting that you are a completely mechanical, deterministic robot (bio-bot?), then no problem, the underbelly is pink and firm.

Most so-called atheists do believe in free will, I think, so they aren’t true atheists. If you really do accept the mantle of pure mechanism then congratulations, you’ve earned your Dennett tattoo!

 

[Sideline]

If you don’t mind accepting that you are a completely mechanical, deterministic robot (bio-bot?), then no problem, the underbelly is pink and firm.

If for no other reason, I’m glad that I took part in this thread just to read that line.

Most so-called atheists do believe in free will, I think, so they aren’t true atheists. If you really do accept the mantle of pure mechanism then congratulations, you’ve earned your Dennett tattoo!

Once again, never having read Dennett, I don’t really care if I agree with him. But I’m glad it pleases you.

 

[Isambard]

You kind of got it backwards… believing in free will is what equates to you believing in at least one godlike entity, which is you. Many people believe in another God. There’s no atheism on either path.

If you don’t mind accepting that you are a completely mechanical, deterministic robot (bio-bot?), then no problem, the underbelly is pink and firm.

Most so-called atheists do believe in free will, I think, so they aren’t true atheists. If you really do accept the mantle of pure mechanism then congratulations, you’ve earned your Dennett tattoo!

Sry champ, the field of social sciences puts to shame of neo-darwinism. Free-will then is acting on a lesser probability.

 

[Sideline]

Sry champ, the field of social sciences puts to shame of neo-darwinism. Free-will then is acting on a lesser probability.

Could you perhaps… elaborate?

 

[dok]

Once again, never having read Dennett, I don’t really care if I agree with him.

So, Sideline, are you an atheist or not? Doesn’t matter about Dennett. You can’t be an atheist and believe in even one little bit of free will.

Most everyday atheists don’t like to face that.

And if you’re really an atheist, you should be foursquare and unabashedly for pure determinism. You can’t have it both ways.

Well, despite the indigestibility, these are the nether reaches of a rigorous philosophy…

 

[dok]

Could you perhaps… elaborate?

Yes, please do.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Thanks.

I caught that… unfortunately, I caught it after I posted.

Yuppers!

I touched on that very, very briefly. As far as we know, between 4.4billion years ago and 2.7 billion years ago, the conditions were favourable for life to start on the planet. How this happened, no one knows for sure. There are many theories, and I have my favourite, but like you said that will derail this conversation faster than you can say abiogenesis.

My niece once told one of her atheist friends that is he was right, and the is no God, neither one would know the difference, but if she was right, and God was present, then they would both see Him–she would just have a more pleasant reception.

 

[Isambard]

Could you perhaps… elaborate?

Neo-darwinism, the idea that your genes determine more-or-less everything you do.

The New Atheist movement is very supportive of this philosophical framework to explain just about everything, as well as argue for a biological basis for morality.

This philosophy has yet to account for the large number of outliers. For ex. twin and adoption studies have demonstrated a strong link between certain personality a child has, and who their biological parents are. But, a sizeable percentage dont follow the pattern and become the outliers.

The “biological robot” analysis is shoddy at best.

 

[Sideline]

So, Sideline, are you an atheist or not? Doesn’t matter about Dennett. You can’t be an atheist and believe in even one little bit of free will.

This might sound hard to believe, but I’m not convinced that you have studied the subject exhaustively. One book does not an expert make. Either way, I certainly haven’t studied it exhaustively.

And frankly I don’t care whether I have free will any more than I care whether red exists in the real world or is simply a figment of my imagination. I’m interested in the different theories, but I have no investment in the outcome.

Most everyday atheists don’t like to face that.

Really? How many atheists have you talked to about this? Are you sure you can really say what most of them like? And are you sure that they are attached to the idea of free will, or they just don’t believe your theory that believing in free will means you need to believe in a god?

And if you’re really an atheist, you should be foursquare and unabashedly for pure determinism. You can’t have it both ways.

Thank-you, random person speaking without proof.

Well, despite the indigestibility, these are the nether reaches of a rigorous philosophy…

Really? Name eight other philosophers that agree with you. I’d think a rigorous philosopher should be able to bang that out pretty quickly.

 

[Sideline]

My niece once told one of her atheist friends that is he was right, and the is no God, neither one would know the difference, but if she was right, and God was present, then they would both see Him–she would just have a more pleasant reception.

How does she know that? That’s a pretty hefty assumption.

Perhaps if there were a god, he… or she… would be tickled by my questioning mind, and dislike people who hedged their bets.

Isn’t there a story in the Bible about people who play it safe?

 

[Sideline]

Neo-darwinism, the idea that your genes determine more-or-less everything you do.

The New Atheist movement is very supportive of this philosophical framework to explain just about everything, as well as argue for a biological basis for morality.

This philosophy has yet to account for the large number of outliers. For ex. twin and adoption studies have demonstrated a strong link between certain personality a child has, and who their biological parents are. But, a sizeable percentage dont follow the pattern and become the outliers.

The “biological robot” analysis is shoddy at best.

I should have explained what I was confused about. (Good explanation by the way.)

I think that dok is suggesting something broader than mere genetic determinism. I think he is suggesting that the whole universe is subject to deterministic laws, and if we were able to make free choices, then we are somehow drawing on an extra-universal ability. We would have somehow had the god-like ability to counteract the laws of nature.

I personally feel our consciousness has a natural explanation, and I don’t really care if the explanation is that we have free will or not.

What confused me about your post was actually the comment:

Free-will then is acting on a lesser probability.

What do you mean by “a lesser probability”.

 

[maggiemay2u]

How does she know that? That’s a pretty hefty assumption.

Perhaps if there were a god, he… or she… would be tickled by my questioning mind, and dislike people who hedged their bets.

Isn’t there a story in the Bible about people who play it safe?

It is an assumption all children of God, following He and His Son, can happily make–it’s called faith.

How is her belief and practicing faithfully the tenets of her belief hedging her bets?

She never claimed to play it safe, she knows that those who suffer humiliation for His sake, will see the face of God.

You sound very young. God bless you and give you faith and salvation.