Quote unquote skepticism

[IAmZamzam]

I figured I'd give you about two weeks to see how much your patience and pleasant countenance can withstand. Now multiply the replies or rather non-replies you've received times 1825 and quite so, that is how long the majority of them have lingered here peddling the same M.O with unwavering enthusiasm....

I think I'm starting to see your point. I would hate to see what I might be like when I reach 1,825 times the number of responses I have now.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I am now a bit confused about the meaning of atheist.
I always thought that atheists do not believe in the existence of the creator of the universe (in other words, atheists do not believe that the universe is created). But now it seems atheists are not sure what to believe.

Let me explain to you what I and other atheists mean by the terms we use.

"Theism" is belief God(s). "Theists" are people who have theism. "Atheists" are people who do not have theism (a-theism, literally meaning without theism).

Atheists therefore technically do include those who have not addressed the question as to Gods, though as Yayha has pointed out these people would not know to call themselves atheists or recognize themselves as being atheists, just as people who have never heard of astrology do not recognize their lack of belief in it.

There are different kinds of theists and different kinds of atheists.

Some theists have theism but nothing more. They don't claim to know much about the God they believe in and don't beleive he/she/it/they interferes with human affairs. We call those people "Deists". They include many of the founding fathers of the USA.

Other theists have grouped together into very regimented belief systems with established dogma, holy books, rituals and beliefs that God requires particular things of them. This can be narrow or very wide encompasing much of one's life and society. Islam is a good example of this.

Of the atheists, you have those who lack theism but are not materialists. These people believe in the spiritual but not in Gods. They may believe in ghosts and the like, or they may believe in spiritual forces, such as chi or tao. Taoism and some other far east "religions" are good examples of this, as are some of the new age folks.

Other atheists are materialists, meaning they do not believe in anything beyond matter and energy. This would include most western atheists you hear about.

Some atheists, though they do not believe in gods (and are therefore atheists), find the idea of God plausible enough that they do not dismiss it out of hand. These are the people we call "Agnostics" (literally a-gnostic, without knowledge). Agnostics often also believe that not only do they not know, but that it is impossible to know.

Then you have the atheists who find the idea of Gods so implausible that they do dismiss the idea out of hand. Most of them would reconsider with better evidence, but given what they have seen they view the existence of Gods as likely as there being space aliens monitoring us and walking amongst us, as there being faeries etc. They find it really really implausible. This strong lack of belief can be insulting to theists who don't like to be thought of as outlandish.

Some atheists (though certainly a minority) mock and deride theists as Yahya noted in his OP, the same way they mock and deride those who believe in other claims they find extremely unlikely, like those who tell us about alien abductions, crop circles, etc.

You then have "anti-theists" who not only lack belief in God(s) but find the religions that have been proposed to be distasteful and harmful. These are the atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. They are the ones who make the news and who you have probably heard about and associate with the word "atheist".

And that ends our brief discussion of what atheists mean when they use the words they do.

Now returning to your question about if atheists believe the universe is created: Atheists are not one unified group. Atheism just means the lack of theism, nothing more. Theism isn't the only way the universe could have been created, so atheists are quite able to believe the universe was created. They'd just name different agents, such as people in other universes or time loops or whatever.

 

[Pygoscelis]

No it isn't the default! For crying out loud, whether you (and ONLY you atheists EVER do this) choose by own accord to use the same word "atheism" to include people who have never heard of God, that doesn't change the fact that, semantics aside,

Not semantics aside. Semantics is exactly what you are objecting to.

they're still a different group of people from those who disbelieve in God!

Correct. Just as those who have never heard of astrology are different from those who have heard of it and are not convinced to believe in it. They are still both people who lack belief in astrology. Even those who have hard of it but are not convinced to believe in it, may become convinced if they learn more about it and get better evidence for it. This is not a dichotomy, it is a sliding scale. But again.... this is just semantics you object to here. I have used too broad a definition of "atheism" for your comfort.

You can't just say, "Babies don't come into the world theistic; therefore they come into the world atheistic"

I sure can since I define atheism as the a-theism, the lack of theism.

I am certain that you are going to duck and dodge that too,

No ducking. No dodging. Though I am thankful for your boat of confidence.

in a vain attempt to convince you to let yourself understand.

Again with the belligerent attitude. Can't we move beyond this?

Let's say that it was even a commonly accepted and universally dictionary-approved definition of "theism" that one of its meanings or sub-groups was those who don't know about God at all. Now let's say that I used that as an argument to support the idea that people are born theistic. What would you think?

I would agree with you. People are born neither believing nor believing against a God existing. So if you define theism the way you suggest, it would include this group. It would not make the point that anybody is born believing though.

Materialism is a complete non-sequitur here.

I suggested you address materialism just as a way for you to get around atheists who define atheism as I do, which is many, and which seems to bother you.

Why do I always keep trying even when I know that what I'm trying to accomplish is useless???

Probably for the same reason I do.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Pygoscelis: you're the one making a point of an equivocation fallacy relying entirely on the supposed ambiguity of the word. I am the one arguing against semantics by pointing out that, whatever word you use, the objective fact still remains that you belong to a completely different group of people from those who do not know about God, and therefore to consider your own group the default just because it happens to have the same word associated with it is purely and utterly arguing semantics, and just as fallaciously as a liberal arguing that since people who are neither liberal nor conservative are also "non-liberals", that makes liberals too fall under a "default" position.

naidamar: atheism is by definition a disbelief that a supernatural creator exists, but some atheists like Richard Dawkins have said that it's theoretically possible that this world was created by some kind of natural alien beings.

 

[جوري]

Richard Dawkins have said that it's theoretically possible that this world was created by some kind of natural alien beings.

here is his quote:

“I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” He can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”

I found it rather amusing how far he stretched the powers of his allegedly militonic brain to come up with that morsel and in the end still sounded like a deluded buffoon!

 

[IAmZamzam]

What else but buffoonery would you expect from him, lily? He's Richard Dawkins.

It is part of a general pattern, of course, and not just with him. Many people seem to be atheists mostly because they insist that the real truth has to be more complex than a god. Although of course they will also spit out Ockham's Razor every other minute--strictly when it is in response to theism. Like so many other things, it just depends on what alternate viewpoint happens to suit their fancies at the given moment.

 

[جوري]

What else but buffoonery would you expect from him, lily? He's Richard Dawkins. It is part of a general pattern, of course, and not just with him. Many people seem to be atheists mostly because they insist that the real truth has to be more complex than a god. Although of course they will also spit out Ockham's Razor every other minute--strictly when it is in response to theism. Like so many other things, it just depends on what alternate viewpoint happens to suit their fancies at the given moment.

The irony is that I don't find their alternative and allegedly more reasoned explanation(s) to have that desired complexity let alone believability-- it is rather inconsistent with logic and common sense. The concept of a creator should be quite natural and instinctual not a convoluted and tortuous mess. Sadder still is that their concept of God has to otherwise fall within the confines of their undoubtedly christian upbringing --they can't bring themselves to understand that there are others whose reasoning and tenets don't follow the fallacy of the god of a 'chosen select few' one who wrestles David and loses or an ineffectual meek and enfeebled god who self-immolated. So naturally whatever 'bigger god' they're looking for has to come from some alien planet or whatever other nonsense they spew when herbed up to end up with the exact militant and zealous attitude they so often fight against..

try as they may they're still slaves to the human condition and the linear thought processes that inevitably ensues!

 

[IAmZamzam]

The irony is that I don't find their alternative and allegedly more reasoned explanation(s) to have that desired complexity let alone believability-- it is rather inconsistent with logic and common sense.

I think that Ockham's Razor itself is too, as experience universally teaches that things are always more complex than they appear, not less. You’d think that scientists would know this better than anyone. I suppose it’s one of those things where convenience or workability in method trumps plausibility in actual fact (or so they think). Not that it matters even if I’m wrong since appeals to Ockham’s Razor outside of science are always just another excuse for dismissing arguments for other reasons than on their own merits.

In any case it's impossible to be logical while touting a principle of seeking the simpler explanations one minute and then going and insisting that things must be more complex than we know the next, depending entirely on whether or not any of it happens to agree with your own biased views.

The concept of a creator should be quite natural and instinctual not a convoluted and tortuous mess.

It’s not a simple one, either: there are many things about God that we will never understand, no matter how much we advance and pool our knowledge. But that brings us to…

Sadder still is that their concept of God has to otherwise fall within the confines of their undoubtedly christian upbringing --they can't bring themselves to understand that there are others whose reasoning and tenets don't follow the fallacy of the god of a 'chosen select few' one who wrestles David and loses or an ineffectual meek and enfeebled god who self-immolated. So naturally whatever 'bigger god' they're looking for has to come from some alien planet or whatever other nonsense they spew when herbed up to end up with the exact militant and zealous attitude they so often fight against..

Except when they are from Muslim lands, of course, in which case every single detail of Allah is the very notion of the theistic God itself. Western atheistic writers write almost exclusively about the Christian conception of God, and use that as their straw man. (Oops, I said the phrase again: this might be trouble.) It seems universal. I guess there just aren’t enough arguments to be made about the mere idea of a supernatural cosmic creator to sustain their book sales and they need to let off their steam about the religions they were brought up with somehow!

try as they may they're still slaves to the human condition and the linear thought processes that inevitably ensues!

As are we all.

 

[جوري]

I think that Ockham's Razor itself is too, as experience universally teaches that things are always more complex than they appear, not less. You’d think that scientists would know this better than anyone. I suppose it’s one of those things where convenience or workability in method trumps plausibility in actual fact (or so they think). Not that it matters even if I’m wrong since appeals to Ockham’s Razor outside of science are always just another excuse for dismissing arguments for other reasons than on their own merits.

The simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred-- and I have encountered one atheist who said the simplest here is that there is 'No God' I don't see how that can be the simpler of two theories?.. the problem therein is that they'll have to account for everything in existence under one umbrella that they are yet to give definition to and in a reproducible scientific patters. I haven't see any of them able to do that.
For instance they have their contentions against the A(dam and Eve 'myth') they call it. Yet humans as we know them haven't always been in existence, and what they propose as an origin to life is not only more absurd but when they work the mechanics from a single celled organism all the way to a complex sentient being and do it for every species. They are still dealing with the exact same odds. Notice that beyond proposing said theory or theories there no real effort is made to substantiate it as a fact.

In any case it's impossible to be logical while touting a principle of seeking the simpler explanations one minute and then going and insisting that things must be more complex than we know the next, depending entirely on whether or not any of it happens to agree with your own biased views.

I agree!

It’s not a simple one, either: there are many things about God that we will never understand, no matter how much we advance and pool our knowledge. But that brings us to…

I am not speaking of the being of God.. of course how can we as created understand the creator. Merely that when anyone reflects about the universe and creation, it will not be satisfactory to heart and mind to come up with lesser beings or convoluted beings as God. if you subscribe to the idea of fitrah which I believe is instinctive to all mankind!

Except when they are from Muslim lands, of course, in which case every single detail of Allah is the very notion of the theistic God itself. Western atheistic writers write almost exclusively about the Christian conception of God, and use that as their straw man. (Oops, I said the phrase again: this might be trouble.) It seems universal. I guess there just aren’t enough arguments to be made about the mere idea of a supernatural cosmic creator to sustain their book sales and they need to let off their steam about the religions they were brought up with somehow!

agree..

As are we all.

absolutely for that is what we are-- Human!

 

[Pygoscelis]

I am the one arguing against semantics by pointing out that, whatever word you use, the objective fact still remains that you belong to a completely different group of people from those who do not know about God

I do not disagree that these people belong to a different group than I do. They do not decline belief in God like I do. We are not the same. I don't pretend that we are.

What we do have in common is that neither of us do believe in God. Believing in God is what makes somebody a theist. Both they and I do not believe in God, so we are not theist, a-theist, atheist.

You seem to dislike that I define "atheist" so broadly. That is a semantic issue.

Look in regard to a specific religion. A person is either following Islam or they are not. Those who are not may be not following Islam because they reject it or they may not be following it because they've never heard of it. In either case, they are non-Muslims. Same goes for those who are not theists, they are atheists.

We have only a semantic disagreement from what I can see so far.

and therefore to consider your own group the default just because it happens to have the same word

I do NOT consider the default to be my particular beliefs. What made you think that? I don't think many people subscribe to my particular set of beliefs. One of the things about atheists is that we agree on so little (see the above run down I gave the other fellow). This is because atheism is nothing more than a lack of theism. That said, even with this broad definition, atheists are a much smaller group than theists, so the distinction is between theist and atheist is useful.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I found it rather amusing how far he stretched the powers of his allegedly militonic brain to come up with that morsel and in the end still sounded like a deluded buffoon!
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

So, Yahya, would you join lily here in mocking the idea that we may be created by some alien intelligence as part of some computer simulation and call that buffoonery? Or do you recognize that such mockery is just as small minded and petty as the mockery you were complaining about earlier from some atheists towards your religious beliefs (which they regard as even more unlikely)?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Except when they are from Muslim lands, of course, in which case every single detail of Allah is the very notion of the theistic God itself. Western atheistic writers write almost exclusively about the Christian conception of God, and use that as their straw man.

This is true. People are going to argue against what they see as the problem. When Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens argue against religion, you're right they are almost always arguing specifically against Chrsitanity or Islam. That is because this is where they feel religion is causing problems for the societies they live in. It would be odd for them to address ancient egyptian religion when it has no impact on and poses no threat to their societies. There is no impetus.

But there are plenty of arguments made against God concepts in general. It really depends on who one is arguing against. You need to put something forward before somebody can argue against it. If somebody presents an argument for a particular religion or for belief in their God, of course they are going to get a specific response. If somebody argues for theism in general then they are more likely to evoke arguments against theism in general.

Even when they do make arguments for theism in general, such as the watch maker argument (that complexity requires creation, usually evoking the "then who created the creator" reply - one not specific to any religion) they usually then somehow try to skip from this to their particular belief system, either explicitly or implicitly. They don't seem to recognize that even if they somehow managed to prove a creation force, that doesn't mean it is a God, and even if they proved it was a God, that doesn't mean it is their God. Prove the universe is created, and the theist still has all their work ahead of them. When religious people argue for theism in general it is important to note this to undercut the implied overstep above, and when we do point this out the theists almost always balk.

 

[جوري]

would you join lily

Your desire for a stamp of approval and to be granted some respectability when championing complete nonsense merely for being uttered by a fellow atheist whose otherwise 'well proven dictum' usually goes unchallenged is as puerile and down right hilarious as being a product that has ''evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of''. .. not only for your unfortunate inability to rise beyond the defeatist temper tantrum as a last resort and after a thousand times repeating a very ailing argument that hasn't been nor would it be able to sustain you in a juvenile match. What are you exactly comparing and/or championing here by eliciting sympathy and emotional blackmail?--That is if anyone is petty enough to be ensnared by your defective disposition!

more funnies from the resident atheists..

 

[IAmZamzam]

So, Yahya, would you join lily here in mocking the idea that we may be created by some alien intelligence as part of some computer simulation and call that buffoonery? Or do you recognize that such mockery is just as small minded and petty as the mockery you were complaining about earlier from some atheists towards your religious beliefs (which they regard as even more unlikely)?

I'm sick and tired of the rest, and of this thread, so let's stick to this, the only real question or direct address. I was not mocking the specific bit of speculation that Dawkins made about alien intelligences doing the supercomputer thing, which I don't particularly care about; I was insulting Dawkins himself, his general pattern of buffoonery, and I wouldn't have done it had sister lily not given me such an obvious set-up. The hypocrisy of his attitude sickened me as it sickened sister lily and I overreacted. When that kind of thing starts happening I probably shouldn't continue talking at all because I know that what little patience I have tends to turn to callousness when it runs out and such an event is typically the first indication.

 

[tango92]

So, Yahya, would you join lily here in mocking the idea that we may be created by some alien intelligence as part of some computer simulation and call that buffoonery? Or do you recognize that such mockery is just as small minded and petty as the mockery you were complaining about earlier from some atheists towards your religious beliefs (which they regard as even more unlikely)?

your example does sound remarkably like what God is. theres no mocking here, however it can be ruled out as a possibility....

 

[Ramadhan]

Now returning to your question about if atheists believe the universe is created: Atheists are not one unified group. Atheism just means the lack of theism, nothing more. Theism isn't the only way the universe could have been created, so atheists are quite able to believe the universe was created. They'd just name different agents, such as people in other universes or time loops or whatever.

I see.
So atheists can also believe that the universe is created.
They just object to a particular name of the creator (ie. God)

Is my understanding correct?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Different atheists object to different things regarding religions and regarding the idea of creation. But taken as a whole, that is all atheists object to, correct. They can believe the universe was created, they just can't believe it was created by a deity.

 

[tango92]

Different atheists object to different things regarding religions and regarding the idea of creation. But taken as a whole, that is all atheists object to, correct. They can believe the universe was created, they just can't believe it was created by a deity.

i disagree. we recenty had a professor from oxford come in for a debate at uni. ultimately he lost simply for failing to provide a reasonable alternative to the existence of the universe other than being created. ie he refused to accept it could be created by anything.

have you heard of Occams razor? (if i spelt that right) well God can easily be known using it. first if you are a person of logic you must accept the universe had a cause. ie a source. now we can begin to make deductions about the source. the primary one being it must be of equal if not greater power than the creation. there you have a crude concept of God.

this argument continues until we get to the point where you must logically accpet the islamic model. if you so wish i will continue...

 

[Ramadhan]

Different atheists object to different things regarding religions and regarding the idea of creation. But taken as a whole, that is all atheists object to, correct. They can believe the universe was created, they just can't believe it was created by a deity.

So atheists believe that the universe can be created by aliens, but it can never be created by God.

Is that correct?

 

[titus]

No, that is not correct.

Creation does not have to be from a sentient being.

For example the Earth creates volcanoes, or the Sun creates heat, so atheists do not see the existence of volcanoes or any other natural phenomenon as proof or evidence of a God. Or of aliens.