What are an atheist's assumptions?

[James_S_Saint]

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??

That is what I meant when I said they are not seriously and humbly looking.

They are too busy blaming the other guy to bother seeing where they are headed and even where they have gotten.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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

If falsifiability is a necessary condition of knowledge, then we have no knowledge. Consider:

The (name removed by moderator)ut that I have from my senses pertains to a real external world.

The above statement is not falsifiable. Even if it were false, it could never be proven to be false. And yet, all science (rightly) presupposes it.

(I’m sure you wouldn’t say – as some do – that we can know “things” about the external world despite the fact that we do not know that there is an external world. This is as bizarre as saying I can know I am looking at a red car without knowing I am looking at a car.)

 

[James_S_Saint]

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

Have you defined what a “god” is?

If not, then you have violated what you already declared.

If you define it differently than the religious, then you are merely creating another epistemology.

If you define it merely as what you already know isn’t real, ignoring that many religious have a definition that you would agree to, then you are merely being a politician.

None of these add up to an Atheist. So which is it?

 

[Touchstone]

If falsifiability is a necessary condition of knowledge, then we have no knowledge. Consider:

The (name removed by moderator)ut that I have from my senses pertains to a real external world.

The above statement is not falsifiable. Even if it were false, it could never be proven to be false. And yet, all science (rightly) presupposes it.

Yes, if you look at my first post in this thread, the belief that the world around us is real, and at least partly intelligible is NOT OPTIONAL. That is, wondering if it is true or false is irrelevant. We have no choice, physiologically, cognitively but to proceed as if our senses are reflective of an extra-mental reality.

Falsifiability doesn’t apply to what is necessarily accepted.

(I’m sure you wouldn’t say – as some do – that we can know “things” about the external world despite the fact that we do not know that there is an external world. This is as bizarre as saying I can know I am looking at a red car without knowing I am looking at a car.)

We believe the external world is real because it is necessary that we do so. We do not have a choice, right down to our physiology. Like I keep saying, putting your hand over an open flame makes this painfully clear to anyone who doubts the necessity of this belief, and therefore the irrelevance of wondering about falsifiability of it.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Have you defined what a “god” is?

There are more definitions available than I can count.

If not, then you have violated what you already declared.

If you define it differently than the religious, then you are merely creating another epistemology.

Well, as a Christian for decades, I had my own (evolving) definition of God, and I was regularly apprised of others’ concepts as well. Reading Plantinga, or Aquinas, or Polkinghorne, all presented different conceptual aspects to consider. But for all of the various takes on “what a god is”, those different descriptions are not, in and of themselves, different epistemologies. Across all of these ran the question: what would reality look like if that (particular definition of) God was a correct view of an extant God? Conversely, what would the world look like in the absensce of that God, or all gods?

Those are highly problematic questions to answer, and I, like most Christians, settled for a casual, subjective answer… I just thought this or that view of God was best or most appealing, and really couldn’t be bothered to offer any means of validating that view, or even more importantly, falsifying it.

If you define it merely as what you already know isn’t real, ignoring that many religious have a definition that you would agree to, then you are merely being a politician.

None of these add up to an Atheist. So which is it?

I’m happy to take on anyone’s definition. I have a friend who is a pantheist, and his definition of “god” is the whole of nature itself. Under that definition, I would say that “god exists” is a meaningful and true statement, because I have good evidential grounds for believing that nature does exist. I don’t declare myself a theist based on that affirmation, though, as that is a very peculiar rendering of “god”, and my atheism is descriptive of my failure to identify anything personal that would be described as a (supernatural) deity.

But as I said, I’ve been over lots and lots of definitions. Maybe there is one that’s novel and important you’d like to offer and I’m happy to hear it, but if so, I will ask the same things of your definition I’ve asked of my own and all the others I’ve encountered: *how would we validate such a definition as a meaningful statement about the world, and how would we confirm a propositiong like “God exists”, or falsify it?

*-TS

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m happy to take on anyone’s definition.

Okay, I can offer two very relevant definitions that I think you would agree with. One is displayed in that thread, “For Confirmed Atheists and Agnostics”.

Have you question on that definition?

 

[Touchstone]

Okay, I can offer two very relevant definitions that I think you would agree with. One is displayed in that thread, “For Confirmed Atheists and Agnostics”.

Have you question on that definition?

Hmmm. I of course noticed that thread and made at least two tries to get through the text, and failed both times. I’m pretty good at getting through difficult prose, I think, but that one had my eyes glazing over. That’s perhaps one I need to ask be broken down into some more manageable chunks, if I’m to address it.

I’ll go have another read later tonight, and see if I fare better.

-TS

 

[wanstronian]

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

Where did you get your etymology from? It’s incorrect.

Not that it matters as the discussion has moved on - I was just curious whether you had actually researched, or just arbitrarily split the word and made an assertion about the result.

This might assist you in the future.

 

[James_S_Saint]

This might assist you in the future.

Thks, but from your source itself…

Etymologies are not definitions; they’re explanations of what our words meant and how they sounded 600 or 2,000 years ago.
.
“to bind fast” (see rely), via notion of “place an obligation on,” or “bond between humans and gods.” Another possible origin is religiens “careful,” opposite of negligens. Meaning “particular system of faith” is recorded from c.1300.

I suspect your notion of “correct” is not entirely correct.

 

[wanstronian]

Thks, but from your source itself…

I suspect your notion of “correct” is not entirely correct.

Exactly - no reference to “returning to the legion” that I can see. Making your etymology incorrect, as I previously pointed out.

But let’s not get bogged down in a minor error on your part.

 

[James_S_Saint]

“to bind fast” “place an obligation on,” or “particular system of faith”

All of those do exactly what I said “maintain the legion”. You just look too hard for any excuse to claim error, before you bother to look for any truth… no wonder you claim agnosticism.

 

[ladlinpa]

Well, I think we now have a profound insight into the assumptions of some theists, and a glimpse of the inferiority complex that they suffer.

I have the same idea with you. Great! Thanks for sharing.
Glad to hear you’re using this: I plan to keep it much more aggressively up-to-date than has been the case in the past, but don’t hesitate to let me know if you find errors or need clarifications.
Simulation pret personnel en ligne, Calcul taux pret personnel en ligne, Financement et demande credit personnel

 

[James_S_Saint]

Hmmm. I of course noticed that thread and made at least two tries to get through the text, and failed both times. I’m pretty good at getting through difficult prose, I think, but that one had my eyes glazing over. That’s perhaps one I need to ask be broken down into some more manageable chunks, if I’m to address it.

I’ll go have another read later tonight, and see if I fare better.

-TS

That seems like such an odd comment in that I have posted that explanation on Atheist sites without any complaint at all (rather praise) from the Atheists. The only complaints I get have been from fundamentalists.

But none have mentioned anything about it being too difficult to read…??

But to reduce it to merely a sentence;

“The Hebrew God is the All-encompassing Principle that everything in the universe must obey (whatever that Principle actually is)”

This notion is directly related to the Menorah and the Hanukkah Menorah.

 

[wanstronian]

“to bind fast” “place an obligation on,” or “particular system of faith”

All of those do exactly what I said “maintain the legion”. You just look too hard for any excuse to claim error, before you bother to look for any truth… no wonder you claim agnosticism.

No - you said, “…realize that “religion” means “re-legion”…”
You can try and wriggle out of it and claim that semantically it means the same thing if you like. I wouldn’t expect you to admit your error, you’re far too arrogant for that.

I don’t look hard for an excuse to claim error, I just observe it and point it out. I claim atheism - not agnosticism - for sensible, rational reasons - that no evidence has ever been presented for the existence of God. It’s as simple as that!

Anyway, as I said before, the conversation’s moved on now. Sorry for bringing it up.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Anyway, as I said before, the conversation’s moved on now. Sorry for bringing it up.

Yeah right… haha… you have absolutely no resistance to proclaim that someone else is wrong if given the slightest excuse. You’re quite a character.

 

[wanstronian]

Yeah right… haha… you have absolutely no resistance to proclaim that someone else is wrong if given the slightest excuse. You’re quite a character.

Okay, whatever you say.

 

[Touchstone]

That seems like such an odd comment in that I have posted that explanation on Atheist sites without any complaint at all (rather praise) from the Atheists. The only complaints I get have been from fundamentalists.

But none have mentioned anything about it being too difficult to read…??

But to reduce it to merely a sentence;

“The Hebrew God is the All-encompassing Principle that everything in the universe must obey (whatever that Principle actually is)”

This notion is directly related to the Menorah and the Hanukkah Menorah.

This is getting a bit off track for the thread, but just to chase this a bit…

So, if this god is an “all-encompassing principle”, which all of nature obeys, god is a type of physical law. It’s exceptional, I guess in that you are suggesting it is a “meta-law”, the law which other laws conform to.

But right there, I think we’ve come to an “atheist” rendering of god, just as my pantheist friend has. An impersonal universe, lacking any personal deities.

Beyond that, the questions I offered above apply: how would we test for presence/absence of such an “all encompassing principle”? If we are mistaken about there even being such a thing, how would we discover that?

In thinking about those two questions, it seems very difficult. You’ve obviously thought about this version of God more than I have, so perhaps you have answers to those questions. But as it is, it seems that saying your definition of God is not amenable to being deemed “true” or “false” as a statement about our reality. If such a thing was just imaginary, a bit of fanciful thinking on your part, I can’t see how you’d identify that.

-TS

 

[James_S_Saint]

Beyond that, the questions I offered above apply: how would we test for presence/absence of such an “all encompassing principle”? If we are mistaken about there even being such a thing, how would we discover that?

In thinking about those two questions, it seems very difficult. You’ve obviously thought about this version of God more than I have, so perhaps you have answers to those questions. But as it is, it seems that saying your definition of God is not amenable to being deemed “true” or “false” as a statement about our reality. If such a thing was just imaginary, a bit of fanciful thinking on your part, I can’t see how you’d identify that.

Well, several concerns here;

1. We really are still talking about “assumptions atheists make”.
2. The post went into reasons why that definition applies to Hebrew thought, but it is not dependent upon any Hebrew association.
3. How personal it is, is a different issue.
4. The existence isn’t really an issue at all.

Does “Chemistry” exist? Chemistry is a word we use to denote and entire gathering of principles involving the behavior of molecules. But how do you prove that Chemistry exists?

The real question is whether you believe that there actually are principles involved. If there are principles involved, then the entire gathering of them, known or unknown, assuming they do not conflict, under one name is also a principle (or Principle).

Even before any proof, which would really be a lot of semantics and logic, do you honestly believe that there really isn’t an all-encompassing principle whether it can easily be put into words or not or proven or not?

 

[Touchstone]

Well, several concerns here;

1. We really are still talking about “assumptions atheists make”.
2. The post went into reasons why that definition applies to Hebrew thought, but it is not dependent upon any Hebrew association.
3. The existence isn’t really an issue at all.

Does “Chemistry” exist? Chemistry is a word we use to denote and entire gathering of principles involving the behavior of molecules. But how do you prove that Chemistry exists?

As you’ve defined it, “chemistry” is a concept, and a concept is as real and extant as any other thought. A “brain-state”, a pattern in your brain that corresponds (if roughly) with the symbols and referents associated with that term in other minds. It’s a “distributed concept” then, as all meaningful language is. But the pshysiological manifestations of your concept are as real as any other brain activity you have – the neurons and receptors that fire as you read this, for example.

The real question is whether you believe that there actually are principles involved. If there are principles involved, then the entire gathering of them, known or unknown, assuming they do not conflict, under one name is also a principle (or Principle).

I think you are confusing reality with modes of thinking about reality. The map is not the territory, and here you are describing some “conceptual housekeeping” which is all good and well, but the “coming under one name” is a statement about your conceptualization, and not a statement about the nature of reality.

A good example of this, if that’s not clear, is the idea of “species”. Biology in nature has no “species”, nothing intrinsic to an individual or population that distinguishes it as one species and not another. It’s important to us humans though to have labels and buckets, ways of organizing and viewing the tree of life (see, even the terms we use - “tree of life” reflect this need) in way that facilitates thinking about the topic, and communicating effectively. But “species” is a bit of artificial conceptualization, some “hotrodding of our map” that doesn’t actually occur in the territory.

Here, your grouping of principles into some squadron that are governed by some meta-principle seems to be just this very thing; hotrodding your “map” in a useful way, but without establishing any “mapping” for that to the territory.

Even before any proof, which would really be a lot of semantics and logic, do you honestly believe that there really isn’t an all-encompassing principle whether it can easily be put into words or not or proven or not?

That’s the problem. It’s not clear to me – at all – what you mean by “really isn’t”, or “really is”. I certainly understand the utility of thinking about reality that way, but like “species”, I understand that to be “conceptual housekeeping”, changes we make in order to provide some desired structure to how we think about the subject.

But, getting beyond that difficulty, if you are asking what my “gut” tells me, even as fuzzy as the terms are here, I would say my gut feeling is that there is some organizing meta-principle that is just a brute fact of reality, the unifying nature of STEM. That’s my honest answer, but I’ve no warrant for thinking that beyond engaging my fancies on the matter.

-TS

 

[James_S_Saint]

But, getting beyond that difficulty, if you are asking what my “gut” tells me, even as fuzzy as the terms are here, I would say my gut feeling is that there is some organizing meta-principle that is just a brute fact of reality, the unifying nature of STEM. That’s my honest answer, but I’ve no warrant for thinking that beyond engaging my fancies on the matter.

-TS

Okay, let’s not engage your “fancies”. Let’s look at the logic and the “facts”.

You certainly believe that a human is a real existence. But have you realized that a human is no more than the gathering lump sum of its components, known or unknown?

A “species” is also a gathering lump sum of it’s component “like items”.

Can you think of anything real that isn’t a gathering of its lump summed components?

I think not. All of the things we say are real are really merely the gathering of their lump sum components. And thus, if the components are real, the gathering of them into a single category makes the category the name of a real entity. This is a truth that I don’t think you could argue against with any sanity.

You know that the principle of gravity is real. But it isn’t real due to us conceptualizing it. It is real only because it has actual manifested instances. You can observe those manifestations and deduce from them, that a principle is being displayed.

If you take gravity and electromagnetic force, quantum principle, and the strong and weak forces, all together, you have a gathering lump sum of all physical behavior that Science has verified (forgiving that they still might have missed something).

Ever heard of “General Relativity”? That was one attempt to write one equation that truly displays all physical properties together - One Principle that all of the known universe obeys and is the harmony of all of the other principles summed together.

Does such a “Relativity Principle” exist? Even if it has not been spelled out exactly properly, I don’t think you could argue that it doesn’t exist because if it is accurate, then all of reality is displaying it everywhere.

Now all of this is merely the very beginning of understanding the “God story” throughout human history. There is much more to say about it all.

But so far, you at least admit faith that such an entity (divine principle) actually exists even if not proven. Nothing fancy. No magic. No superstition. Just faith.

With much deeper logical analysis, we could get to actually understand that your faith really is justified by logic and thus becomes understanding, not merely faith. I don’t care which way you think about it right now.

A “god” is a “divine” entity (a principle - not necessarily a part of nature) that totally controls the behavior of whatever it is the god of.

So at this point, you really do believe in a God (cap G), you just think God is stupid and uncaring?