On agnosticism (Calling Atheists and Agnostics)

[hatsoff]

When I say that it is “un-livable” I mean that paradigm is falls apart. Sure you are living fine, but what if your “desires and preferences” allows you to blow up an orphanage? They wouldn’t be living fine.

That’s where the law comes in. We as a society construct and maintain a criminal justice system in order to prevent people whose moral awareness is stunted or twisted from running amok.

You say that if you saw me chop up a little baby it would bother you. Why would it bother you?

Lots of reasons, not the least of which is that it would be a dead giveaway that you’re socially deviant.

There are 3 aspects of Evil: 1) The Fact of Evil (2) The Face of Evil and (3) The Feeling of Evil (a response we have to evil). I appreciate your participation. I think you need to come to terms with why it would bother you if there is no objective moral law. Please note that in this discussion I am not trying to imply that you are not a cariing person. Atheists can be very “moral” people too. All I am saying is that the Atheistic paradigm “logically” allows for a world to be “un-livable” where everyone does what is right in their own eyes, which would lead to chaos.

You’re not the only one to make this claim, but I have found that it arises from a confusion about what atheists actually believe. We do not have any need to be tolerant, or forgiving, or sympathetic. If we happen to wish to be tolerant/forgiving/sympathy under a limited class of circumstances, great! But that’s not a requirement at all. So if I witness infanticide, I am perfectly willing to react without tolerance, forgiveness or sympathy for the perpetrator.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Let us look at your family background. Will you share?

Ok? What would you like to know?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

If by that you mean the truth about what atheism is and not what everyone else wants it to be or thinks it is then yes.

^^^^^^^ Couldn’t of said it better.

 

[josiah]

That’s where the law comes in. We as a society construct and maintain a criminal justice system in order to prevent people whose moral awareness is stunted or twisted from running amok.

Lots of reasons, not the least of which is that it would be a dead giveaway that you’re socially deviant.

You’re not the only one to make this claim, but I have found that it arises from a confusion about what atheists actually believe. We do not have any need to be tolerant, or forgiving, or sympathetic. If we happen to wish to be tolerant/forgiving/sympathy under a limited class of circumstances, great! But that’s not a requirement at all. So if I witness infanticide, I am perfectly willing to react without tolerance, forgiveness or sympathy for the perpetrator.

Could you tell me what does an atheist believe? Could you also answer how you would answer those 4 worldview questions too. Thanks.

 

[hatsoff]

Could you tell me what does an atheist believe?

Are you kidding? We believe all kinds of things. Atheism is characterized by the lack of belief in gods, and nothing more. Within the set of people satisfying that description, there is incredible variation. Moreover, for any individual (e.g. me), we have a plethora of beliefs and other functional relationships to ideas–far too many to list here, and perhaps anywhere.

Could you also answer how you would answer those 4 worldview questions too. Thanks.

Like I said, not every “worldview” attempts to answer them. However, I will provide a brief description of my stance concerning each issue.

1. Origin

Biodiversity arose through biological evolution; life arose through some form of abiogenesis, approximately 4 billion years ago, give or take 500 million years. The cosmos–that is, this particular universe (not including the rest of the hypothetical multiverse)–arose as described by some kind of rapid expansion model (i.e. the big bang). How that came about is unknown at this time.

1. Purpose

Purpose is what we make it. There is no such thing as a divine, universal purpose. Instead, we have temporary, human purpose.

1. Basis for what is right or wrong

Already covered.

Destiny

If by “destiny” you mean God’s plan, then of course I reject that any such destiny exists. If you’re asking whether or not I’m a physical determinist, then I must admit agnosticism on that particular matter.

 

[severntofall]

Without the intent of derailing the thread it is child’s play to prove that 1 = 0. Here it comes:

Step 1: Let a = b.
Step 2: Mulitply both sides with “a” and get: a^2 = ab,
Step 3: Let’s add a^2 to bothe sides: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 4: Which can be written as: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab,
Step 5: Subtract 2ab from bothe sides: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab,
Step 6: Which is: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab.
Step 7: This can be written as 2 * (a^2 - ab) = 1 * (a^2 - ab),
Step 8: and cancelling the common factor of (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 2 = 1
Step 9: which equals 1 = 0.

Where is the error?

There error lies in steps 7 and 8. If you have 2 * (a^2 - ab) and then subtract (a^2 - ab) then what you have left is **2 * zero **which of course equals zero. Nice attempt at sophistry though. Oh yeah, **1*zero ** also equals zero.

Was this an intentional attempt at deception or did you actually think you were on to something?

 

[severntofall]

You are continuing to hide behind this?

Yss, he should just declare “goddidit” and be done with the matter.

Atheism isn’t a claim about what is in fact the answer to those questions; rather it’s just an understanding about what isn’t the answer. The answer to those questions is not an either or proposition and the fact that there are questions that remain unanswered doesn’t mean that you should just insert your favorite answer and be done with it (my answer would be the Kansas Jayhawks for the record). Whether a god exist or not, it cannot be excluded as a possibility IMO, but neither should it be assumed as the answer based upon nothing more than error ridden logical syllogisms.

 

[j1akey]

josiah:

I think I understand what you are saying. How do you answer those four questions?

Origin: Beats me
Meaning of Life: Dunno
Morality: Learned from my parents and through life experience
Destiny: Short answer is I think people for the most part control their own destiny

 

[liquidpele]

There error lies in steps 7 and 8. If you have 2 * (a^2 - ab) and then subtract (a^2 - ab) then what you have left is **2 * zero **which of course equals zero. Nice attempt at sophistry though. Oh yeah, **1*zero ** also equals zero.

Was this an intentional attempt at deception or did you actually think you were on to something?

Between the lines. Read between the lines.

 

[buffalo]

Ok? What would you like to know?

Why are you the person you are?

 

[Solus_vistor]

Right, and that’s exactly why I think it’s not quite fair to draw an analogy between math axioms and religious articles of faith.

Analogies, metaphors etc might or might not better explain to somebody situations, relations that are a priori unfamiliar to him/her. I do not see where fairness enters into it. Besides, I did not refer to the contemporary understanding of maths axioms but to 18th century understaning of the Euclidean axioms as “necessary truths” about physical space. Of course, the analogy does not make sense to those who do not accept any other but physical reality.

there are many “established” philosophical systems which are just plain wrong.

That is exactly my point. If you tell an educated Catholic “The Being you call God does not exist”, he/she might respond by “I think you are wrong”, not by "You are (your beliefs system, your world-view is) nutty.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Why are you the person you are?

Due to my genes, my upbringing, my social circle, my life experiences, my education, and so forth.

 

[Greg27]

I am aware of the teachings on the church on this matter. My own lapse into agnosticism is fairly complex. Basically I don’t feel though that the case for theism or atheism has been made to satisfy me ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that either position is true. The human mind and its powers to comprehend reality are not infinite and as Kant and Hume argued quite well, there are various reasons why the existence of God cannot be proven with certainty or at least doubts can be raised about God’s existence. It seems to me before you accept either theism or atheism or indeed any religion, you should have enough justification and evidence to support the belief so that you can hold and defend it in good conscience against skeptical analysis and critique. While I am sympathetic to Christian belief and its values, I have too many problems at the moment with Christian theism to accept it totally in good conscience. Likewise I have the stand towards atheism.

The doctrines of Vatican I seem to have the spirit of Descartes alive and well in them. Before Descartes the issue of proving God’s existence with certainty was not really an issue (except perhaps with Anselm and his followers who tried the ontological argument). God’s existence was either just accepted because it was taught or revealed, or the apparent evidence from other arguments (i.e. design, morality and teleological arguments) together gave enough evidence to convince the reasonably educated person that God existed. Aquinas did this in Summa Contra Gentiles and quite reasonably he assumed that most educated people in his day believed in God and also felt such a belief was perfectly acceptable.

The arguments for God’s existence are still valid insofar as they give the intelligent person reasons to consider that God may exist, and what sort of being God is. Likewise, the arguments against give reasons not to believe. The dogmatic declarations of Vatican I on the other hand, suggest to me the approach is more faith-based and assumes God exists on the basis of revelation (as St Paul does in the first part of Romans). While such dogmas may be convincing to the converted, to me they don’t add much probative weight to the arguments that God exists since the dogmas tend to assume on the basis of faith what they assert to prove and demonstrate. I am more admiring of the documents of Vatican II, which assign a more active role to a loving and gracious God acting in the world to draw all people to himself and also on the inherent human capacity to search for and find the ultimate good in God. The approach of Vatican II is less confrontational and aggressive and also better reflects the intelligent ‘Catholicity’ one finds in the apologetics of Augustine, Aquinas, Scotus, and the other great medieval thinkers. While the arguments are still not enough to convince me to return to faith, they are still worth considering. So of course are the arguments of those who do not believe. I am open to be convinced of the correctness of a position provided there is rational justification, the beliefs are coherent and intelligible and there is good evidence to support them and prove the case ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ But unfortunately the reasonable doubt part is the issue for me, to the point where I cannot give the assent to either atheism or theism in good conscience.

 

[Solus_vistor]

I am open to be convinced of the correctness of a position provided there is rational justification, the beliefs are coherent and intelligible and there is good evidence to support them and prove the case ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ .

If you persist in trying
To attain what is never attained
(It is Tao’s gift!)
If you persist in making effort
to obtain what effort cannot get;
If you persist in reasoning
About what cannot be understood,
You will be destroyed
By the very thing you seek.

To know when to stop
To know when you can get no further
By your own action,
This is the right beginning.
-------Chuang Tzu/Thomas Merton

Do you have to prove God to yourself?
Do you need to light a torch to see the sun?
-------Eastern wisdom

Do not go afar: seek within thyself. Truth resides inside of man.
-------St Augustine

The Christian God is apparently transcendent to the world, but immanent in the !depths of the soul. …
Truth descends only on him who tries for it, who yearns for it, who carries within himself, pre-formed, a mental space where the truth may eventually lodge.
-------Ortega y Gasset

 

[tonyrey]

Then why did you reject the teaching of Jesus as nonsensical?
Not so much his teachings more just the whole christian story.

                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**

 

[tonyrey]

But unfortunately the reasonable doubt part is the issue for me, to the point where I cannot give the assent to either atheism or theism in good conscience.

How do you explain your power of choice?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Which of His teachings do you regard as nonsensical?

I said not so much his teachings, the whole christain story.

So we decide for ourselves?

Well yes? Different people have different purposes?

So the rule that killing a person (except in self-defence) is wrong can be changed?

Some states execute prisoners, that is not self-defence. I notice you didn’t answer my question about stoning kids. Do you do as the bible says and stone disobedient children? Or has that moral guildline kpeople:CHANGED*kpeople:???

How did these forces originate?

Open a book.

** = evasion.**

No, ok amoungst MANY MANY things it makes me want to understand my origins. That is why i’m not satisfied with non answers like “god did it”.

So there was a reason why the molecules combined in that particular way?

Yes, this is basic chemistry.

Selection presupposes variety. How did variation occur? Randomly?

Nope, this is basic biology. The only things that are random are mutations. Though im not sure you will even know what a mutation is.

Why else?

Empathy, making the most of my life, morality (which comes from being part of a cooperative society).

**I did not say it is! No one is **made to be moral. We choose for ourselves whether to do what is right or wrong. How have we acquired that power? From inanimate objects?

From being a social species.

 

[Spock]

There error lies in steps 7 and 8. If you have 2 * (a^2 - ab) and then subtract (a^2 - ab) then what you have left is **2 * zero **which of course equals zero. Nice attempt at sophistry though. Oh yeah, **1*zero ** also equals zero.

Was this an intentional attempt at deception or did you actually think you were on to something?

Liquidpele already answered it, but since you directly asked me, I will reply. It was just a bit of a joke, to lighten up the thread. Since I am a mathematician, of course I knew where the problem was. And I did not create the example either. It is a commonly used trick question. By the way, I can also “prove” that every triangle is an isosceles triangle… but it would need a pencil and a paper which are unavailable in this text only environment. The trick in that “proof” is rather hard to catch.

 

[tonyrey]

Which of His teachings do you regard as nonsensical?
I said not so much his teachings, the whole Christian story.

**Your ***initial ***statement was “Yes” in answer to my question: “Or do you reject the teaching of Jesus as nonsensical?” Do you retract that statement? **

So we decide for ourselves?
Well yes? Different people have different purposes?

• What *enables us to to decide for ourselves?

So the rule that killing a person (except in self-defence) is wrong can be changed?
Some states execute prisoners, that is not self-defence.

Does that make it right?

I notice you didn’t answer my question about stoning kids. Do you do as the bible says and stone disobedient children? Or has that moral guildline kpeople:CHANGED*kpeople:???

**You are obviously not aware that Christianity is not based on the Old but the New Testament.
**

How did these forces originate?
Open a book.

** = evasion.**

No, ok amoungst MANY MANY things it makes me want to understand my origins.

Can you explain your origins?

That is why i’m not satisfied with non answers like “god did it”.

Why is it a non-answer? Do you have an alternative answer?

So there was a reason why the molecules combined in that particular way?Yes, this is basic chemistry.

**Neither physics nor chemistry explain why molecules combined in one particular way to form life out of billions of possibilities…
**

Selection presupposes variety. How did variation occur? Randomly?
Nope, this is basic biology.

You still have not explained how variation occurred prior to random mutations.

**Why else? **Empathy, making the most of my life, morality (which comes from being part of a cooperative society).
If there is a conflict between those factors which do you put first?

**How have we acquired that power? **

From being a social species. **How does belonging to a social species give you the power to choose whether to do what is right or wrong?
**

 

[Fran65]

Charles Darwin;5560171/:

Yes, this is basic chemistry.

You’ve given that type of answer before - because that’s how those atoms and molecules behave. Its not an explanation, it is a description.
Charles Darwin;5560171/:

The only things that are random are mutations. Though im not sure you will even know what a mutation is.

Come on now. You don’t need to be rude!

You say that you have difficulty in believing the Christian ‘story’, but I’m not sure that it is that difficult to believe once you accept the principle of God as Creator (in the sense of the unmoved mover and source of physical laws).

If God is the source of physical laws and is Creator, then He can suspend those laws and intervene in the physical universe. This is the explanation for the Virgin birth and the Resurrection. Those two things, never reported before or since in the life of any other individual on this planet, are the signature of God that indicates that Jesus is indeed His only Son. Jesus, for His part, behaved, spoke, lived and died just as one would expect the Son of God to.

It is also salutary to consider that the argument that the Apostles made it all up to convince everyone that Jesus was the promised Messiah depends upon them making up events and a narrative that Jews of the 1st Century would find convincing. The reality is that many Jews found the Virgin Birth and Resurrection both baffling, repulsive (in the case of the resurrection) and completely unbelievable. In addition, why would the Apostles and their followers be willing to die horrible, drawn out deaths by torture if they’d made it up? Wouldn’t you expect someone to crack? Someone out of the 11 to say when faced with the instruments of torture - you know what? We hid the body and made it all up. None of them did. Not one!

If one is to 'make up a story to convince others, then the least that you would do is make up a story that is plausible. If I’m late to work I’m more likely to say that my car broke down than that I’d been abducted by aliens. if I want to start a religion I’d make stuff up that people would want to accept - like you’re really a superior being trapped on this planet and if you follow my instructions then you’ll become super successful, healthy and wealthy (step forward L. Ron Hubbard). Telling people that they will be despised, ridiculed, mocked (by society) and judged by God isn’t quite as attractive now is it?