How do I turn the table on atheists?

[samiam1611]

But, I think you would agree that such group(s) are quite the exception - with most claiming some diety (or dieties) and incorporating this belief into their culture.

Indeed. BTW it’s deity not diety.

Concerning your dismissal of the god(s) of ancient people because of animism or that rocks and rivers have spirits - is rather curious. The idea is that they believed in something outside of themselves that was greater than they were - and they showed respect if not our-right reverence… and maybe there is also evidence of worship here, too.

Well I wasn’t really dismissing it really…as you rightly say, it’s belief of something outside of themselves, something invisible. It just seems to me to be a bit of a stretch to say reverence for nature is like knowledge that god(s) exist. I don’t know if animism can really be considered a form of theism.
Again though, a culture that has belief in animism but lacking belief in god(s) is an exception to the norm.

 

[samiam1611]

, I do want to make sure that I am clear on this item. There is the overwhelming weight of evidence in favor of virtually no tribe claiming Atheism - or even Agnosticism - as the characteristic religion of their culture. One really has to work very, very hard to look around and say, “Yeah, it just happened!” and let it go at that.
]

From the second link in my post:

"Another group, the Vedahs of Ceylon, only admitted the possibility that gods might exist, but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way.

When specifically asked [about] a god, Durant reports that they answered in a very puzzled manner:

“Is he on a rock? On a white-ant hill? On a tree? I never saw a god!”

Durant also reports that a Zulu, when asked who made and governs things like the setting sun and the growing trees, answered:

“No, we see them, but cannot tell how they came; we suppose that they came by themselves.”

Agnostic and atheistic and nontheistic cultures do exist…they are just very few and far between.

 

[tonyrey]

“Primitive” simply means "characteristic

The issue is not how they are maltreated - which is to be condemned - but whether their beliefs affect the truth about the nature of reality…

Your remark about “supposed” presupposes that you transcend “Culture and historical specificity/difference”. On what basis?

I do not transcend the culture I am a part of, that is why I am quoting from it - many westerners have supposed we are more civilised, rational and better than others, and then spectacularly failed by their own standards.

Do you reject the UDHR? The failure of individuals to conform to standards does not imply that those standards are defective…

(Here is the book about the Piraha, it looks like they have a rich culture and heritage amazon.co.uk/Dont-Sleep-There-are-Snakes/dp/1846680409/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323432137&sr=8-1)

I’m sure they do but it doesn’t follow that their beliefs about the nature of reality are true…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Samiam1611,

Thank you for the spelling correction.

God bless

Indeed. BTW it’s deity not diety.

Well I wasn’t really dismissing it really…as you rightly say, it’s belief of something outside of themselves, something invisible. It just seems to me to be a bit of a stretch to say reverence for nature is like knowledge that god(s) exist. I don’t know if animism can really be considered a form of theism.
Again though, a culture that has belief in animism but lacking belief in god(s) is an exception to the norm.

 

[Bobber90]

Hi, Bobber90,

Before long you will be explaining the ‘meaning of meaning’ here…

I think my basic statement stands - the ‘unaided human mind’ can (but obviously this is not 100%) come to a knowledge of God or god or god(s). The vast majority of cultures have an identifiable diety or set of dieties. And, I guess there is one for sure … and one that is a ‘gimme’ that actually states, "There is no god(s)’.

Now, if you do not want to address this - fine. But, I do want to make sure that I am clear on this item. There is the overwhelming weight of evidence in favor of virtually no tribe claiming Atheism - or even Agnosticism - as the characteristic religion of their culture. One really has to work very, very hard to look around and say, “Yeah, it just happened!” and let it go at that.

God bless

Well if it is true that the majority of people have believed in various types of gods, then so be it - I certainly wouldn’t argue that the Piraha represent the norm.

I believe a deity is not necessary to explain the state of the universe, and empirically speaking I think there are too many alternative explanations of the features of life which are often regarded as showing the imprint of the divine, to make a strong theism case. Perhaps there is some sort of first cause deity, but I particularly struggle with the idea of a personal god. Whereas materialistic, evolutionary explanations of consciousness and morality deal thoroughly with the whole gamut of experience, from beauty, majesty and cognition to strife, death and horror, I find theistic accounts lacking where a good, intelligent designer god is called upon to explain the ways of the world.

Ultimately, I do not think it is possible to know that the universe can only (or best) be explained with reference to a god, although it is highly interesting to learn more cosmology to see the limits of what we can know. It has been very interesting talking to you Tqualey, and I feel I have portrayed a reasonable agnosticism which shouldn’t be too disagreeable or frustrating to you(!) but obviously I’ve just thrown a few more things out there, so feel free to poke a few holes or ask searching questions.

 

[Bobber90]

The issue is not how they are maltreated - which is to be condemned - but whether their beliefs affect the truth about the nature of reality…

Do you reject the UDHR? The failure of individuals to conform to standards does not imply that those standards are defective…

I’m sure they do but it doesn’t follow that their beliefs about the nature of reality are true…

I think it is the ‘near occasion of maltreatment’ if you will, to maintain implicitly in the way we talk and think about other people that they are ‘primitive’, for the reasons I gave before.

On the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (that’s the UDHR?), it is a nice idea, sure, but there are other ways of defining entitlement outside of civic or legalistic human rights, but these are less prominent than current European/American notions. So again, there is a risk of marginalising other people’s notions of justice which are non-rights based, or other people’s ideals. Anyhow, the main issue is interpretations of reality, so I’ll leave you to get back to it!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

What a truly nobel soul you are…

So, let me see if I correctly understood your post - the majority of civilizations can come to a knowledge of God or god or gods without a divine intervention. While there are some notable exceptions, e.g., the Piraha civilization, such groups do not serve as the norm in that the ‘unaided human mind’ can come to a knowledge of God.

At the same time, you have chosen to either not believe in God or to state that there is not enough evidence to point to a Supreme Being that created everything out of nothing.

Is this correct?

God bless

Well if it is true that the majority of people have believed in various types of gods, then so be it - I certainly wouldn’t argue that the Piraha represent the norm.

I believe a deity is not necessary to explain the state of the universe, and empirically speaking I think there are too many alternative explanations of the features of life which are often regarded as showing the imprint of the divine, to make a strong theism case. Perhaps there is some sort of first cause deity, but I particularly struggle with the idea of a personal god. Whereas materialistic, evolutionary explanations of consciousness and morality deal thoroughly with the whole gamut of experience, from beauty, majesty and cognition to strife, death and horror, I find theistic accounts lacking where a good, intelligent designer god is called upon to explain the ways of the world.

Ultimately, I do not think it is possible to know that the universe can only (or best) be explained with reference to a god, although it is highly interesting to learn more cosmology to see the limits of what we can know. It has been very interesting talking to you Tqualey, and I feel I have portrayed a reasonable agnosticism which shouldn’t be too disagreeable or frustrating to you(!) but obviously I’ve just thrown a few more things out there, so feel free to poke a few holes or ask searching questions.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it is the ‘near occasion of maltreatment’ if you will, to maintain implicitly in the way we talk and think about other people that they are ‘primitive’, for the reasons I gave before.

 

[Bobber90]

I have lived among so-called primitive “pagans” in Northern Nigeria and I can assure you they are superior to “civilised” people in more ways than one…

To regard UDHR as merely “legalistic” is to distort the intentions on which it was based.
How else could it have been expressed to gain universal acceptance? It is easy to criticise but far more difficult to create…

Well, precisely then! The term ‘primitive’ may seem to fit those northern Nigerians, but could sound rather insulting. That was my point, and I’m sure it would seem like a poor move if I said “Don’t listen to what they’ve got to say on life, they’re primitive.”

I did not say the UDHR was merely legalistic, but we shouldn’t assume it is the universal format and means of the expression of common desires for wellbeing. Human rights frameworks can play havoc with the traditions and practices of many societies that were until recently relatively unconnected with modern globalisation. G. C. Spivak points this out for a particular Indian community she works with, whose universal rights to fair representation are difficult to achieve consistently with their culture. European/American notions of civil society are intruded upon indigenous ways of living, and their culture is sidelined. For example, UN quotas put women in positions of power (great, satisfies the UN), who are unfortunately inexperienced and prone to manipulation by elders and outsiders, resulting in an impasse. The alternative (so Spivak thinks, and it’s not easy to tell what sometimes) is to learn from these communities, and to adapt western human rights so as to have them make sense in terms of local meanings and practices. That way, the grounds are laid for some sort of indigenous democratic government to develop.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Bobber90,

At the risk of sounding like I would like to return to the thread… Please take a look at my post #828 and let me know if we are in agreement.

God bless

Well, precisely then! The term ‘primitive’ may seem to fit those northern Nigerians, but could sound rather insulting. That was my point, and I’m sure it would seem like a poor move if I said “Don’t listen to what they’ve got to say on life, they’re primitive.”

I did not say the UDHR was merely legalistic, but we shouldn’t assume it is the universal format and means of the expression of common desires for wellbeing. Human rights frameworks can play havoc with the traditions and practices of many societies that were until recently relatively unconnected with modern globalisation. G. C. Spivak points this out for a particular Indian community she works with, whose universal rights to fair representation are difficult to achieve consistently with their culture. European/American notions of civil society are intruded upon indigenous ways of living, and their culture is sidelined. For example, UN quotas put women in positions of power (great, satisfies the UN), who are unfortunately inexperienced and prone to manipulation by elders and outsiders, resulting in an impasse. The alternative (so Spivak thinks, and it’s not easy to tell what sometimes) is to learn from these communities, and to adapt western human rights so as to have them make sense in terms of local meanings and practices. That way, the grounds are laid for some sort of indigenous democratic government to develop.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

O.k., perhaps this Scientific American article might help:

mcb.ucdavis.edu/faculty-labs/scholey/journal%20papers/Ricardo-Szostak-SA2009.pdf

It’s not 40 pages long.

“Unfortunately, success in the experiments required the presence of
preexisting RNA pieces that were far too long
and complex to have accumulated spontaneously…
Is there a simpler alternative?”

Are these determined as yet or not?

"If we assume for the moment that the gaps in
our understanding of the chemistry of life’s
origin will someday be filled, we can begin to
consider how molecules might have interacted
to assemble into the fi rst cell-like structures,
or “protocells.”

Actually, I thought the theory was somewhat more complete than this… even theoretically, there are big holes in this. Amazing! Anyway, even this stuff sounds remarkably unlikely to have all occurred in sequence in the same place? Especially when you add on the added unlikelihoods which the very nature of the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun add…

Incidentally, something for you to think on: The favoured theory in the original document, from 1998 (or whatever), has since been wholly abandoned as I underatand it, yet I’ll bet it was defended as assertively and with as much confidence, in it’s day, as this new approach…

 

[BVollmar]

There Isn’t any evidence that God doesn’t have good reason for not preventing any particular evil or event in general. Why? Because we do not have the infinite knowledge or the nature of a God. Thus all the variables are not present so that we can make a justified inference. If we can think of just one possible circumstance in which finite humans are unable to act because they have knowledge of a greater good, there is no reason why we should not assign that possibility to God given his infinite knowledge.

Simple.

Then why try to stop any kind of evil, no matter how small or large the evil? There could always be a greater good that none of us knows about except for God. Maybe persecuting Christians isn’t so bad, there could be a greater good to be had.

I apologize if this might already be addressed somewhere, I haven’t made it through all 800+ posts yet. I also admit to not being able to follow all of the abstract philosophical arguments like the nature of truth and reality, so it would help my understanding if replies could be kept on a (for lack of a better word) lower level.

Cheers!

 

[BVollmar]

Hi, Atheistgirl,

Hey, I enjoy getting, ‘…great respect…’ and if anyone else on the thread wants to join you in this activity - be my guest! Now on the serious work at hand…

As I told you previously, Atheistgirl, you are more than welcomed to believe anything that you have determined you will believe in. But, I think - just as a point of intellecutal honestly, to rely on the changes in science, as demonstrated from history, is risky at best.

If you wish to dig in your heels and claim that, ‘There is no God’ (usccb.org/bible/psalms/14 ) and ‘All of this (the universe) just happened’ there really is not much I can say. Honest. The issues of evil, sickness, pain and death are just so many elements in a world that was just thrown together. These elements have no real long term consequence because we have no long-term existence. I guess calling for a ‘stiff upper lip’ or like the atheistic poet William E.Henley you can quote the poem ‘Invictus’. Here is a link: pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_33.htm (Henley’s poem is at the end - but, I would recommend you look at this material. What is truly significant about Henley, in my opinion, is that he did not courageously act out his poetic thoughts, but simply killed himself.

Seriously, if there is no belief in God there is no sense in trying to talk about the various evils in the world and how to face them - such responses are dismissed…with great respect… as an excuse. I have honestly taken this as far as I can.

Best wishes on finding the real answer you seek.

God bless

With all due respect, just because AtheistGirl hasn’t accepted your argument yet does not mean she has closed her mind to all viewpoints except her own predetermined beliefs. Maybe your arguments are not as good as you think they are.

 

[BVollmar]

Hello,

Hi, MOM2,

There is a certain element of frustration that seems to be growing … and before it reaches ‘critical mass’, let me offer an observation and a suggestion. I think you are being taunted … I suggest you just relax and move forward.

Seriously, he is not responding to your arguments… and ‘Straw Man Construction’ is all he can build. All atheists have is the improbability of their position. After all the smoke has cleared the argument is reduced to, “I do not believe because I do not believe”. The argument I have presented about the objective and readily obserable patterns throughout the universe pointing to the existence of the Master Patern Maker (God) has not been refuted. All that comes out from the group waving the Atheist banner is, “Everything just happened and here we are!” If this argument were any more lame, it would be bedriddern! What keeps it going is that simple exercise of free will.

My very limited sample size is the two atheists I knew in college - and both had major behavior problems that they did not want to change. So, they just changed their belief structure to match their behavior and suddenly no more anxiety!

I do not know what happened to either of them. My prayer is that they have responded to the Grace of God.

God bless

"All atheists have is the improbability of their position. After all the smoke has cleared the argument is reduced to, “I do not believe because I do not believe”.

How is this any worse than the summary of the theist’s argument, which seems to be:

God did it, here we are, I believe because I believe and you can’t disprove anything, so what I believe is true for everyone.

 

[roothless]

I am an agnostic, former on an off Catholic. I am interested to see what people have to say to me. I don’t really plan on becoming religious. I think it is really annoying when atheists attack religious people for there beliefs, but I think it is equally annoying when religious people attack atheists for their beliefs(or lack of). I have taken many classes on philosophy and history. I basically developed the opinion that it is silly to invest yourself in one religion, there are so many religions on this earth that it is so unlikely that any of them are right. Remember this is my personal belief so please don’t take offense to it. I try to be a nice person and treat others how I would like to be treated ect… I do think there is some all knowing entity out there in the universe, I just don’t follow any 1 religion.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, BVollmar,

Even on the nitty-fritty practical level, there are those who claim to not believe in God and work as First Responders, Disaster Relief Volunteers, Social Workers, Nurses, etc - who see the effects of evil and work very hard to minimize its effects.

Look into your own heart and see if you can see a stranger drowning in a public swimming pool with no one else around - and decide NOT to throw them a line or call for help - and telling them that if they drown it was God’s Will and must be for a greater good. If you could do this - well, I guess we really don’t have anything to talk about. If you would try to save that person… well … ask yourself why. Your reasons are your own - but, let me answer my own question.

Most of us have a genuine love in our heart for others. How this is expressed is all over the place - but, in my opinion that love was placed there by God. But, as we go through life, no matter who or what we love - it always comes up a little bit short of what we had wanted - and this seems to be a universal condition transcending both time and culture.

St. Augustine (354AD-430AD) sought for love in a lot of the wrong places … and came to a realization when he said, “Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee".

Maybe this will help explain why most of us want to reduce the impact of evil.

God bless

Then why try to stop any kind of evil, no matter how small or large the evil? There could always be a greater good that none of us knows about except for God. Maybe persecuting Christians isn’t so bad, there could be a greater good to be had.

I apologize if this might already be addressed somewhere, I haven’t made it through all 800+ posts yet. I also admit to not being able to follow all of the abstract philosophical arguments like the nature of truth and reality, so it would help my understanding if replies could be kept on a (for lack of a better word) lower level.

Cheers!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roothless,

I am a little fuzzy on the distinction between Atheist and Agnostic. Maybe I am just lacking in sophistication, but I see no practical difference between the two. The first group says that there is no God while the second says there is not enough evidence to prove that there is no God. If it ended there - there really wouldn’t be a problem for me to understand the difference … but, as you can see on these posts… there WILL NEVER BE enough evidence for the Agnostic! So, my thinking is that the Agnostic just does not want to be called an Atheist… while the Atheist doesn’t care about what he is called. So, if you have a clarification on this, it would be helpful for me - unless, of course, you are in agreement with what I said.

Why did you move from being an ‘on Catholic’ to an 'off Catholic? That may help in formulating a more appropriate and focused answer to your question.

Since, you ‘…really don’t plan on becoming religious…’ there does not really appear to be much to say… does there? My understanding of the list is that it is for people who are interested in Catholic Answers to questions they may have. Maybe I missed it, but I did not see a question in your post. I did however, see a rather loud cry for ‘Help!’. So, maybe you could tell us - what is it you need help with?

God bless

I am an agnostic, former on an off Catholic. I am interested to see what people have to say to me. I don’t really plan on becoming religious. I think it is really annoying when atheists attack religious people for there beliefs, but I think it is equally annoying when religious people attack atheists for their beliefs(or lack of). I have taken many classes on philosophy and history. I basically developed the opinion that it is silly to invest yourself in one religion, there are so many religions on this earth that it is so unlikely that any of them are right. Remember this is my personal belief so please don’t take offense to it. I try to be a nice person and treat others how I would like to be treated ect… I do think there is some all knowing entity out there in the universe, I just don’t follow any 1 religion.

 

[atheistgirl]

With all due respect, just because AtheistGirl hasn’t accepted your argument yet does not mean she has closed her mind to all viewpoints except her own predetermined beliefs. Maybe your arguments are not as good as you think they are.

I normally dont get to see or read this persons posts and I’ve not bothered to read the part in quotes, as that would kind of defeat the objective of having an ignore feature However, you’re quite right, I havent found any of the arguments presented convincing. They certainly seem to be better in the mind of certain authors than the readers

I maintain, as always, a very open mind

Sarah x

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Throwing in my unsolicited opinion here!

I am a little fuzzy on the distinction between Atheist and Agnostic.

There doesn’t seem to be total agreement on the semantics of the words.

Maybe I am just lacking in sophistication, but I see no practical difference between the two. The first group says that there is no God while the second says there is not enough evidence to prove that there is no God.

Under some uses there may not be much of a difference.

You’ll see some people in this forum use the term “agnostic atheist” which says “We don’t have enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of gods and I don’t hold a belief in any.” Or “strong atheist” which says “I know with confidence that there are no gods.” Occasionally some one will use a term like “agnostic Christian” which says “We don’t have enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of Yahweh, but I still believe he exists.”

So, my thinking is that the Agnostic just does not want to be called an Atheist… while the Atheist doesn’t care about what he is called.

Depending on one’s community one may not want to be called an atheist regardless of what his or her actual position is. There are social punishments that come with that which in some communities can lead to loss of job and job opportunities, being viewed as one that cannot be trusted, social rejection, out group hostility, rejection from one’s family, and so on. The closest parallel and that in some communities you would not want people to think you are gay regardless of whether or not you are really gay because of what may follow it. In the community in which I grew up atheists were were sterotyped as necessarily antagonist people that do believe in Yahweh, but they hate him and any one that is a follower of Yahweh (I think it was part of the “You are either for us or against us!” mentality of the church. There wasn’t much room left for neutral positions). Within this forum there are some that see the word as being indicative of a mental disorder, traumatic upbringing, or a secret hatred for one’s biological father.

The penalties and associations attached to the word will discourage some from wearing the label. I suspect that you’ll find that some people within this forum that label themselves as some type of atheist are selective about where their wear the label in real life to steer clear of the penalties of using the word.

There’s a college student that did some series of Keynote (Powerpoint for Mac) presentations on his transition to his position (Agnostic Atheist) and had a presentation on the definitions. For any one interested it is here.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ThinkingSapien,

Thank you for jumping in.

I really do not recall having seen a “Keynote” presentation before - and technically, this one is good. Actually, the author has several that (I guess) he produced to conveny his particular type of ideas. The one I got a chuckle out of was with the graphics used to show God with an ‘empty bucket’ of ‘Nothing’ - forcing Him to remove a rib from Adam so that God could make Eve. So here is Michaelangelo’s picture of God creating the sun as seen in the Sistine Chapel (youtube.com/watch?v=U6MWo_drOhI&feature=related - ah - disregarding the ‘mooning angel’ on the left) with a rib in His hand. Truly an imaginative soul!

Actually, the very concept of ‘running out’ of Nothing is quite strange - sort of like getting to the ‘last number’ where nothing else can be added to it! So, if you see that running out of Nothing is impossible, then the author really seems to get carried away with himself and his defense of atheist dogma by claiming God was now forced to take something from Adam so God could make Eve. That is almost as good as claiming to be open minded but refusing to listen to anyone who does not share one’s ideas…

God bless

Throwing in my unsolicited opinion here!

There doesn’t seem to be total agreement on the semantics of the words.

Under some uses there may not be much of a difference.

You’ll see some people in this forum use the term “agnostic atheist” which says “We don’t have enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of gods and I don’t hold a belief in any.” Or “strong atheist” which says “I know with confidence that there are no gods.” Occasionally some one will use a term like “agnostic Christian” which says “We don’t have enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of Yahweh, but I still believe he exists.”

Depending on one’s community one may not want to be called an atheist regardless of what his or her actual position is. There are social punishments that come with that which in some communities can lead to loss of job and job opportunities, being viewed as one that cannot be trusted, social rejection, out group hostility, rejection from one’s family, and so on. The closest parallel and that in some communities you would not want people to think you are gay regardless of whether or not you are really gay because of what may follow it. In the community in which I grew up atheists were were sterotyped as necessarily antagonist people that do believe in Yahweh, but they hate him and any one that is a follower of Yahweh (I think it was part of the “You are either for us or against us!” mentality of the church. There wasn’t much room left for neutral positions). Within this forum there are some that see the word as being indicative of a mental disorder, traumatic upbringing, or a secret hatred for one’s biological father.

The penalties and associations attached to the word will discourage some from wearing the label. I suspect that you’ll find that some people within this forum that label themselves as some type of atheist are selective about where their wear the label in real life to steer clear of the penalties of using the word.

There’s a college student that did some series of Keynote (Powerpoint for Mac) presentations on his transition to his position (Agnostic Atheist) and had a presentation on the definitions. For any one interested it is here.