What are an atheist's assumptions?

[BobCatholic]

Atheists assume at least the following things:

1. There is no God
2. Atheism is not a religion.
3. Morally speaking, everything is allowed - except to believe in God.

Everything else is dependent on the individual atheist. You can’t pin them down on the other things because they disagree with each other.

I’ve proven #2 wrong simply by showing how Atheism has the same elements as religion, like: dogmas (which is #1 and #2 above), moral code (#3 above), evangelists (Hitchens, Dawkins sure are preaching to anyone who will listen!), theology (#1 above) and other elements.

 

[liquidpele]

Atheists assume at least the following things:

1. There is no God
2. Atheism is not a religion.
3. Morally speaking, everything is allowed - except to believe in God.

Everything else is dependent on the individual atheist. You can’t pin them down on the other things because they disagree with each other.

I’ve proven #2 wrong simply by showing how Atheism has the same elements as religion, like: dogmas (which is #1 and #2 above), moral code (#3 above), evangelists (Hitchens, Dawkins sure are preaching to anyone who will listen!), theology (#1 above) and other elements.

1. ok
2. By definition it is not, unless you’re also in the church of not believing in Zeus. There may be some aspects that both have, but does that make it a religion or just an organization with humans as members?
3. That’s ridiculous, be serious.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Umm… huh?

Biblically, it is the story of Cain and Able. During the 1970’s in the USA was the “Raising Cain” period shifting “paradigm” from being a Shepherding government to a Farming government.

With Shepherding, you have property and rights = Capitalism.

With Farming, you are property of the state = Socialism.

 

[liquidpele]

Biblically, it is the story of Cain and Able. During the 1970’s in the USA was the “Raising Cain” period shifting “paradigm” from being a Shepherding government to a Farming government.

With Shepherding, you have property and rights = Capitalism.

With Farming, you are property of the state = Socialism.

I’m pretty sure the socialism aspects started around FDR’s time, you know, after capitalism put us into a great depression

But anyway, socialism does not mean theocracy (or any government that forces things upon the people instead of being for the people), which is what I was referring to in my post about Islamic states.

 

[Kamalayka]

1. ok
2. By definition it is not, unless you’re also in the church of not believing in Zeus. There may be some aspects that both have, but does that make it a religion or just an organization with humans as members?
3. That’s ridiculous, be serious.

Atheism is not a “default position.” It is a belief.
An atheist isn’t privy to any knowledge that the rest of us are not. And to compare Christianity to primitive paganism shows that you are trying to create an atmosphere of mockery. If you want to be condescending, no thanks.​

You may create your schools of atheism, materialism, naturalism, etc., but let’s see how well your “schooling” is when GOD gives you the examination…

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m pretty sure the socialism aspects started around FDR’s time, you know, after capitalism put us into a great depression

But anyway, socialism does not mean theocracy (or any government that forces things upon the people instead of being for the people), which is what I was referring to in my post about Islamic states.

All socialist orders require control over both the physical (military) and the mental (beliefs) in order to be independent. That is why England had to form it’s own Church. They are ALL a form of the Pharaoh of Egypt, Caesar, Hitler, and now the US and the World Order.

The US is now trying to obtain total authority over the medical world because that world rests between the physical and the mental (body and mind/psychological). The US President is rightly being called a Pharaoh in many countries, because he really is.

So yes, independent Socialism really does mean a theocracy even though it isn’t defined as such. The end effect is the same.

They are all Farmers, not Shepherds.

 

[BobCatholic]

1. ok
2. By definition it is not, unless you’re also in the church of not believing in Zeus. There may be some aspects that both have, but does that make it a religion or just an organization with humans as members?

A religion doesn’t require an organization. There are lots of disorganized religions

And I’m in the Church of not believing in Zeus - it is called the Catholic Church. So by your definition, the Catholic Church is not a religion.

1. That’s ridiculous, be serious.

Yes, I’m serious. Show me the code of ethics that Atheism holds to. From what I have seen, there is such liberty in atheism, all is permitted except believing in God.

 

[James_S_Saint]

A religion doesn’t require an organization. There are lots of disorganized religions

I agree with the idea of “disorganized”, but realize that “religion” means “re-legion” or to maintain the legion.

That doesn’t mean that a legion is necessarily “organized” to any visible extent, but it IS an “organ”.

 

[tonyrey]

Our experience is prone to subjective bias and error because our mind is a single mind. But consciousness itself implies an extramental (objective) reality.

Why does consciousness imply an extramental reality? Even though our experience is prone to subjective bias and error we have to assume we are thinking if we are to reach any conclusions at all. If we are mistaken there is no point in assuming that reality is intelligible because there will be no one to understand it (even partially).

So I cannot avoid the objective nature of reality, or deny it from the first, even if I was so inclined.

We cannot avoid the objective aspect of reality but neither can we avoid the subjective nature of our thoughts. But our starting point is our stream of consciousness. So there is no reason to** assume t**hat external reality takes precedence over internal reality.

I don’t think we need to postulate physical reality to conclude that other minds exist.
‘Physical’ is just a name for the conceptual framework that gives meaning to ‘exist’.

Here you are concluding that physical reality is the primary reality but why should we conclude that our sense data proceed from a reality which is “more real” than our thoughts? Again it is a conclusion rather than an assumption.

It’s a tautology; that which we can we can give meaning to the word ‘exists’ for implies a context for existence. As an assumption, we don’t need to use the word ‘physical’, but it’s a nice shorthand for ‘that which bears distinctions of existence, attributes and behavior, based on our sense -data’. And if we do suppose other minds exist, that statement is only meaningful insofar as we can conceptually ground the word ‘exist’.

We can just as easily conceptually ground the word “exist” in our thoughts - and the source of our thoughts. I think you find it difficult to detach yourself from physicalism!

If telepathy were borne out experientially, empirically, we’d just make that part of ‘physical’, because it would qualify just like speaking and hearing words.

To begin with, we have experience **only **of our thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Our perceptions, for all we know, could be caused by other sources of thoughts, i.e. minds.

“Physical” is just a label pointing to ‘amenable to perception, qualification, qualification and/or interaction on an objective basis’. The extramental (objective) distinction is hard wired – an infant that touches a hot stove involuntarily pulls her hand back, as she is cognitive wired to treat the objects of perception as extramental.

Again this is a conclusion. Pain is perceived and at the outset we cannot** assume **it has a physical cause. No matter how much distress it causes it may be imaginary! It isn’t, of course, but in our search for assumptions we haven’t yet reached that stage of knowledge

*You seem to be left with no physical assumptions at all! *
As above, those assumptions are unavoidably physical.

I have pointed out why they are conclusions rather than assumptions.

The presences of other (intelligent) minds proceeds from the assumption of a (partially) intelligible reality. Given our commitment to the intelligibility of reality, on of the assessments we make from that, incorporating our experiences, is that other minds do exist, and that we can communicate on some level with some of them.

Strictly speaking the assumption that reality is intelligible presupposes the existence of at least one intelligence. Intelligibility cannot exist in a vacuum…

I’m focusing on the key element of your original post here, and making distinctions between assumptions and conclusions, which often get confused and conflated. Indeed, this is a major contributing factor to many errors in belief; assumptions are often just thought to be conclusions you aren’t obligated to justify for some arbitrary reason, rather than propositions that are accepted by necessity, and which cannot be avoided.

I entirely agree with you but we differ on our initial assumptions.

 

[punkforchrist]

Touchstone:

We are getting assumptions confused with conclusions here, again. Knowledge as acquirable only through experience is a conclusion we arrive at by the circumstances we find ourselves in. We have no basis for assuming this up front as a logical necessity.

I have yet to encounter any non-circular argument that demonstrates our knowledge is restricted to sense experience. But, even if it is, it doesn’t do any damage to theism.

 

[Touchstone]

I have yet to encounter any non-circular argument that demonstrates our knowledge is restricted to sense experience. But, even if it is, it doesn’t do any damage to theism.

1. We begin as agnostic of the question of sources of knowledge; experience may or may not be the sole source.
2. At some point later, we review our knowledge, and discover that anything we can objectively call knowledge is sourced from experience. In fact, we have no way to qualify knowledge as knowledge expect by validation against real world experience.
3. We conclude from our revew in (2) that experience is the only known source and means of validating knowledge.
4. We remain open to the possibility that knowledge may obtain in some other fashion than sourced by experience, and validated by experience, but we neither understand what this alternate source would be like, or how it would be validated as knowledge.

Where is the circularity? Starting from agnosticism, experience as the (name removed by moderator)ut to and validation for knowledge is the only way we have identified as forward towards knowledge. There’s no *a priori *restriction, it’s just that experience as (name removed by moderator)ut and judge is the only known method shown to produce knowledge.

-TS

 

[punkforchrist]

I disagree with both (1) and (2). I don’t think humans are a mere tabula rasa, so I don’t accept (1). (2) is ultimately what is circular. How does one know that only sense experience is what has provided us with knowledge? Have you observed the transitive axiom?

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. We begin as agnostic of the question of sources of knowledge; experience may or may not be the sole source.
2. At some point later, we review our knowledge, and discover that anything we can objectively call knowledge is sourced from experience. In fact, we have no way to qualify knowledge as knowledge expect by validation against real world experience.
3. We conclude from our revew in (2) that experience is the only known source and means of validating knowledge.
4. We remain open to the possibility that knowledge may obtain in some other fashion than sourced by experience, and validated by experience, but we neither understand what this alternate source would be like, or how it would be validated as knowledge.

Where is the circularity? Starting from agnosticism, experience as the (name removed by moderator)ut to and validation for knowledge is the only way we have identified as forward towards knowledge. There’s no *a priori *restriction, it’s just that experience as (name removed by moderator)ut and judge is the only known method shown to produce knowledge.

-TS

Although I understand what you are saying and largely agree, you don’t really start as “agnostic”.

A mind must be already “wired” such as to produce relevant categories of existence (relevance categories for potential perception). This necessitates that a mind already believe in a reality of a logical nature. Yet the issue of what logic actually is has never been consciously addressed yet.

That mind, every mind, begins to perceive sensed “items” to fit into pre-declared categories. When anything fits into any of those categories, the mind accepts that category as being valid and proceeds in belief of the existence.

But the mind has very many categories already established merely awaiting validation. As life proceeds, many categories and even new categories get established and validated.

These new categories of potential valid knowledge must be recognized by their declared properties in order for perception to insert any sensory (name removed by moderator)ut into them. This is why definitions of words are absolutely required whether presumed or stated.

This means that it is the mind’s willingness to create a category of “entity” before any perception can take place. Science cannot verify the existence of anything until it understands what it is looking for. If such a category definition is not provided, Science (and perception) can only conclude that “nothing fit into that category” because it never was clear as to what the category was.

But in place of the confused or absent category declaration, Science does not merely stop, but rather establishes other category declarations to fill so as to “understand” (place into a category) what has been observed (perceived).

By doing this, continuing without “properly” or formally assigned categories, a new language is created for the mind to build understanding. That new mental language and understanding has merely left out the old categories and replaced them with new categories for the same items.

This is actually all that has happened with the birth of Science and is the cause of confusion when declaring that the old categories (“God”) are not “evident”.

Your perception must first make a category for an item before it can perceive that anything fits into it. Even if something is sensed, the mind immediately begins to establish categories so as to quantify the sensed existence. This is its job.

So the bottom line is that no one truly beings with a “blank slate” else they would not be able to perceive anything at all. And in addition, allowances must be made for categories being discussed by others that might not have been established by the researcher.

You cannot see it or validate it until you already know what it is “supposed” to look like. And you also cannot conclude that you haven’t already seen it until you know that.

 

[Touchstone]

I disagree with both (1) and (2). I don’t think humans are a mere tabula rasa, so I don’t accept (1). (2) is ultimately what is circular. How does one know that only sense experience is what has provided us with knowledge? Have you observed the transitive axiom?

I’ve not said humans are a *tabula rasa. *You can find a lot of my posts here that argue right against that, and point to our physiological nature as a given that brings with it a large amount of beginning points – instincts and natural dispositions, for example.

(1) does not demand that we deny our physiological nature. Indeed, if you interact with infants, its clear that they respond to the world around them in ways that are not learned. The sucking instinct, for example, supports the idea that the breast and breastmilk are real, and effective toward needs, and it doesn’t need to be taught or learned…

Rather, as a matter of reasoning, above and beyond our “wiring for reality”, we cannot dismiss out of hand that other avenues of knowledge may obtain than the sensory/validation methods we have learned since being infants. It is in this sense we are agnostic – what we know as we develop comes through our hands, our mouths, our ears, our eyes, but we don’t have grounds to say that those modes are exhaustive; if there is such a thing as “non-experiential” knowledge, perhaps we just have not discovered it yet.

But that’s a far cry from us beginning as a blank slate. We are anything but, a rich book of the past inscribed on us by evolution.

As for (2), even as you state it, it’s not circular; it’s not defined in its own terms. “Supernatural knowledge” may obtain with some form of objective validation that has nothing to do with experience. So it may obtain completely apart from the “loop” we use for experiential knowledge. The criteria for may be quite different, distinct.

It’s just a matter of circumstance, and thus our conclusion, that no such alternative modes of knowledge obtain. I think perhaps your complaint is really with the implications/requirements of “knowledge”, rather than any circularity, above. All three terms are problematic outside of natural knowledge in “justified true belief”. It’s not NECESSARY that it be that way, but that’s the way it is.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Although I understand what you are saying and largely agree, you don’t really start as “agnostic”.

A mind must be already “wired” such as to produce relevant categories of existence (relevance categories for potential perception). This necessitates that a mind already believe in a reality of a logical nature. Yet the issue of what logic actually is has never been consciously addressed yet.

That mind, every mind, begins to perceive sensed “items” to fit into pre-declared categories. When anything fits into any of those categories, the mind accepts that category as being valid and proceeds in belief of the existence.

But the mind has very many categories already established merely awaiting validation. As life proceeds, many categories and even new categories get established and validated.

Yes, see my response just above to punkforchrist. I gave the wrong impression by using “agnostic” up there. Humans are wired by evolution to be something “fixed” cognitively – flexible, but with a starting disposition, and a complicated one. Newborn minds are NOT blank slates.

Even so, as disposed toward “experience-based-knowledge”, we are as ever confronted by the prospects that we may not know what we don’t know. So maybe “agnostic” makes that sound ambivalent on the issue. Better to say as a matter of reason and logic, we are not in a position to rule out possible other modes of knowledge AS A MATTER OF NECESSITY.

These new categories of potential valid knowledge must be recognized by their declared properties in order for perception to insert any sensory (name removed by moderator)ut into them. This is why definitions of words are absolutely required whether presumed or stated.

This means that it is the mind’s willingness to create a category of “entity” before any perception can take place. Science cannot verify the existence of anything until it understands what it is looking for. If such a category definition is not provided, Science (and perception) can only conclude that “nothing fit into that category” because it never was clear as to what the category was.

Yes, this is the point I raised in the "What does ‘God’ mean?’ thread. Rendering a verdict on some propositions presupposes some conceptual grounding for proposition being investigated. It seems this hardly should need to pointed out, but it does get overlooked a lot.

But in place of the confused or absent category declaration, Science does not merely stop, but rather establishes other category declarations to fill so as to “understand” (place into a category) what has been observed (perceived).

Right.

By doing this, continuing without “properly” or formally assigned categories, a new language is created for the mind to build understanding. That new mental language and understanding has merely left out the old categories and replaced them with new categories for the same items.

This is actually all that has happened with the birth of Science and is the cause of confusion when declaring that the old categories (“God”) are not “evident”.

Yes, although science made such dramatic changes to the old categories that it’s more accurate to just say that it developed into a new epistemology, rather than than just a revised ontology.

Your perception must first make a category for an item before it can perceive that anything fits into it. Even if something is sensed, the mind immediately begins to establish categories so as to quantify the sensed existence. This is its job.

So the bottom line is that no one truly beings with a “blank slate” else they would not be able to perceive anything at all. And in addition, allowances must be made for categories being discussed by others that might not have been established by the researcher.

You cannot see it or validate it until you already know what it is “supposed” to look like. And you also cannot conclude that you haven’t already seen it until you know that.

A good example to look at here is the process of visual integration that occurs in infants.

-TS

 

[James_S_Saint]

Touchstone,

You are giving me the impression that you are not exactly Atheist, but rather simply do not want to acknowledge religions epistemology…?

 

[liquidpele]

Touchstone,

You are giving me the impression that you are not exactly Atheist, but rather simply do not want to acknowledge religions epistemology…?

Why do religious people always seem to assume atheists are so different from themselves? With very few exceptions we all love, we all bleed, and we all search for truth and understanding.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Why do religious people always seem to assume atheists are so different from themselves? With very few exceptions we all love, we all bleed, and we all search for truth and understanding.

We “assume” by observation,

But additionally, the insistence that there is no God and no morals is a serious proclamation that can predictably lead to very serious consequences.

I have yet to see any Atheist actually, humbly, and seriously looking into the future consequences of what they propagate. They are in the midst of battle and don’t look before they leap. If not for this one concern, I might even support their cause.

But in reality, they are merely helping to establish a Pharaoh, priest-king with ultimate power to enslave all people without escape. Atheists do not seem to realize this very certain fact, nor do they even want to investigate the possibility. They PRESUME.

It is all a political game with very dire consequences, yet those consequences are being ignored.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone,

You are giving me the impression that you are not exactly Atheist, but rather simply do not want to acknowledge religions epistemology…?

My conclusion is that there are no Gods or gods, or anything supernatural that interacts with man, or anything in natural world.

I believe that makes me exactly an atheist. Doesn’t it?

You’re right about a lot of my criticisms of religious epistemology, though. In many cases, that seems an overly charitable term, or one that only obtains in a subjective sense. As a Christian, it was extremely dislocating to realize that my “Christian epistemology” was lacking a key feature of my natural epistemology – a corrective feedback loop. I don’t think it’s too helpful to quibble about what terms get used, but it’s important to understand the fundamental difference between mystical epistemologies/gnosis and natural knowledge: natural knowledge is accountable to a corrective/validating function, and this is the essence of knowledge, in my view. Not just to arrive at conclusions in some orderly way, but to have conclusions be liable to validation and/or falsification.

A famous disparaging remark about String Theory is “it’s not even wrong”. That’s actually a very powerful slam, because in science, we value what is “true” – performative against empirical testing – but “false” is just as meaningful, even if it’s not our goal. But “not even wrong” means the idea is too confused or incoherent to even get judged on that level. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just confused.

That’s not a view I share about String Theory, but the idea is a powerful one in assessing religion. When a Thomist tells me about the “purest existence” of an entity, or its “essence”, I understand from having tried to invest real world meaning in those terms as a Christian, and asking lots of experienced metaphysicians as well, that those concepts are “not even wrong”. They simply aren’t meaningful statements about reality.

If Christianity, or mystical religion were to establish some kind of epistemology that integrated objective feedback, some model for correction and validation, then we’d be somewhere. Then “true” and “false” and “exists” and “doesn’t exist” would have meaning sufficient for actual investigation. That leaves the field wide open at that point. If you can invest objective meaning in the term “God exists”, then you are well on your way to finding a meaningful answer.

-TS

 

[liquidpele]

We “assume” by observation,

But additionally, the insistence that there is no God and no morals is a serious proclamation that can predictably lead to very serious consequences.

I have yet to see any Atheist actually, humbly, and seriously looking into the future consequences of what they propagate. They are in the midst of battle and don’t look before they leap. If not for this one concern, I might even support their cause.

But in reality, they are merely helping to establish a Pharaoh, priest-king with ultimate power to enslave all people without escape. Atheists do not seem to realize this very certain fact, nor do they even want to investigate the possibility. They PRESUME.

It is all a political game with very dire consequences, yet those consequences are being ignored.

Which atheists argue that there are no morals??
The future consequences? Like what? Sweden? It’s a nice place actually.
How in the *world *do you get to atheists helping to establish a priest-king??

Sigh… well, I suppose I see why you made that comment at least. Your views on atheists are ridiculous!