»Atheism is not a Religion«
|
|||
 fatpie42: What? Do you think you can PROVE these things exist? Are you capable of overcoming a couple of centuries of sceptical philosophy that is, so far, unvanquished? Yes. One empirically established fact annihilates three millenia of sophistry and speculation. That is why scientific fact became so important, for better or worse, because it can be collectively enforced, unlike "skeptical philosophy," which is entirely subjective and thus unenforcable in a collective sense. Example: People speculated since the beginning of time about how to subjugate other nations in time of war; in essence, they asked, "How can I achieve total victory over an external enemy?" This question remained unanswered until 1945, when Allied scientists answered it by completing the first nuclear bomb and detonating it near Alamagordo, New Mexico, USA. fatpie42, you claim that atheism is your religious position, but that is certainly a fallacy because you can't take a negation like "I am an atheist, I don't believe in God," and make it into a discrete, positive point of identity. That is like IMO new user Francesca Allan claiming to be able to heal the mentally ill because she doesn't believe psychiatry works, or me claiming to be able to raise a dinosaur from the dead because I contend that paleontology is not properly part of science. Disbelief in any religion makes you a nonbeliever in that religious tradition, but disbelief in all religions does not make you a believer in the religion of disbelief. That is inherently contradictory because disbelief in anything simply makes you a disbeliever in that thing, not a believer in something else. Thus, if you say, "I believe in atheism, meaning I believe that I don't believe in God," I would say, "You are just a disbeliever in God, and you know that if it is true; no belief is requried to prove an established fact within your own psyche." Take this quote for instance. fatpie42: Every religious position is matter of faith so we must simply choose the one that is both:
(a) acceptable within our framework of knowledge and (b) optimistic My position is that atheism is best, not because it is better suited to our knowledge. In my opinion most religions fit in with our framework of knowledge quite nicely (apart from Christian creation science). My reason for accepting atheism is because it provides the most positive framework for life... Here you divulge your true faith: optimistic selfishness. In defining what a religious position is, you leave every variable up to yourself, without allowing your community, culture, or society to have any say in the matter. This is why you have allowed yourself to labor so long under the delusion that atheism is a religion or religious position: you want to believe that you can disbelieve your way to belief, or negate your way to a discrete positive. Furthermore, you say "our knowledge" as if everyone had the same knowledge, and was not just picking and choosing which knowledge to acquire because it suits their own evolutionary drive for self-perpetuation, or as your beloved Nietzsche put it, their "Will to Power." The incorrect assumption of optimistic selfishness is, in my view, that each individual is his or her own God, able to direct the course of historical events around themselves in real time as they happen, since atheists apparently claim to want an improved society and world as much as the next person. How this will happen, they have no idea, but they are sure of one thing: they want to come out on top of as many people as possible when the bad shit really goes down. Really, I have no problem with atheism, but I don't deem it a religious position. When I became a Christian, it was because I felt that my country needed more Christians, which I define as people who study and attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, and when I wrote about it here, you told me I was not a Christian according to your understanding. That's fine, but I took that as an exhortation to join with you in the religion of selfishness, which you have qualified here by insisting that your selfishness is somehow "optimistic." When you told me I was not a Christian, you proselytized me to join you in the faith of optimistic selfishness. Consider this my reciprocation to your proselytizing. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsAtheism is not a Religion |
|
|||
 I don't remember you ever telling me what religion you were. I think I vaguely remember you TELLING me that you didn't like Christianity - so if I rushed to conclusions I am sorry. Naturally I want anyone who might be happy as an atheist to check it out, since I think atheism can be a force for good for many people - but I don't wish to push atheism on those for whom it is unsuitable. Atheism does involve certain views on the world and thus it is a world view. Not all atheists believe the same thing, but then again the same is true of Christians or (to use more closely analogous language) the same is true of monotheists. Surely you wouldn't say that monotheism wasn't a world view because it is just a denial of many Gods, would you? P.S. Would you rather I had said "one's knowledge" rather than "our knowledge"? P.S.2 You don't know that I am selfish any more than I know that you are selfish. That was an unfair accusation and I feel quite insulted. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlave: fatpie42: What? Do you think you can PROVE these things exist? Are you capable of overcoming a couple of centuries of sceptical philosophy that is, so far, unvanquished? Yes. One empirically established fact annihilates three millenia of sophistry and speculation. That is why scientific fact became so important, for better or worse, because it can be collectively enforced, unlike "skeptical philosophy," which is entirely subjective and thus unenforcable in a collective sense. So you believe in scientism as well as Christianity then? I'm sorry but you have given far more power to science than it has earnt. I don't suppose you have looked at the works of Thomas Kuhn? (philosophy of science) posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: So you believe in scientism as well as Christianity then? What the hell is "scientism?" Is that like "Scientology," something that sounds like science but isn't? In that case, no, I don't believe in it.  fatpie42: I'm sorry but you have given far more power to science than it has earnt. I don't suppose you have looked at the works of Thomas Kuhn? (philosophy of science) I have read plenty of books on the philosophy of science, but none of them are called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , though I have read about that book. That kind of stuff is not really philosophy of science, but is similar to Star Wars fan-fics or something, since it is writing about science, analyzing science, but is written by a non-scientist, just like Star Wars fans whose names are not George Lucas write tons of new movie ideas for him, none of which he ever uses. Kuhn and company come up with lots of new ideas about how the philosophy of science works or should work, none of which ever have any impact on the course of scientific history. You may think I am sold down the river on science, but this is only if the science in question utilizes the scientific method to draw conclusions. The only philosophies of science that matter are the two that the public believe really are science, because they masquerade as science: paleontology and theoretical physics. Paleontology is more like a religion because it requires faith in a set of officially sanctioned beliefs regarding the specific events which transpired to produce human and non-human life. Theoretical physics is more like a philosophy in that it attempts to use increasingly-complex applied mathematics, logic, and rhetoric to create a framework for a material universe. Neither of them are science, in my opinion, but they are philosophies of science. Thomas Kuhn is fan-fiction. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Of course the philosophy of science hasn't affected how science works. It's not meant to. You don't expect physics to change the way nature works do you? Philosophy of science is an attempt to understand the history of science and what makes something scientific. Kuhn was not a scientist, he was an historian and that was what allowed him to come up with his theories. Kuhn is one of the greatest thinkers in the philosophy of science. His thoughts have been important for the philosophy of science, history and religion. I know you are completely uninterested in philosophy and that is why I claimed that you were into 'scientism'. You seem to think that science should not be questioned, and even claimed that science has solved all sceptical philosophical problems. This is nonsense and it shows your lack of knowledge in the field of philosophy. Science does not have all the answers. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Science does not have all the answers. You're right, it doesn't, but it will. Just because there will still be people like you who complain that science can't know as much as you think you know because you read lots of philosophy and theology, doesn't mean that science will not eventually have all the answers that matter. It will. Once again, as some atheists frequently do, you are attempting to negate your way to a positive by saying that you don't believe that science has earned its preeminence among practical systems of thought. Forgive me if I am not impressed with this reasoning. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 MindSlave: You're right, it doesn't, but it will. That is a religious statement. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
What reasoning? When did I say that science would never have all the answers? I merely claimed that I agreed with Thomas Kuhn and, since you've never read anything by him or explaining his ideas on paradigm shifts, you have no idea what relevance that has to the conversation. All I'm saying that science has assumptions upon which it is based and has not solved the problems of scepticism concerning free will, other minds or external objects. That isn't reasoning since in order to explain my position I would have to write a rather long dissitation including most of the things I studied for my philosophy degree. I simply can't be bothered to do that and I'm fairly you wouldn't want to read it anyway. Instead I think it might help for you to explain why you think science has proven these things. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: All I'm saying that science has assumptions upon which it is based and has not solved the problems of scepticism concerning free will, other minds or external objects.
(...) Instead I think it might help for you to explain why you think science has proven these things. The "problems of scepticism" are invented problems, and all revolve around the question, "Why?" i.e. "Why do I have free will?" or "Why do external objects appear real to me?" (I'm leaving out "other minds" because I don't know what you mean by that.) Those are all questions that are unanswerable, so why try to answer them? Instead, science asks, "How?" "How do I have free will?" is easy, "You have free will due to an evolutionary accident, and for that reason, you are a super-intelligent animal, and this belief is necessary for your survival and reproductive fitness." If you thought you had no choice in the matter, you would either never do anything - not eat, not sleep, or not pass on genes - or you would do anything you wanted to and fail - try to survive on a diet of candy, try to stay awake for a year without sleeping, or try to impregnate a girl you like by sending her your sperm in test tubes - all of which would lessen your ability to survive and reproduce. "How do external objects appear real to me?" is similar to the first question, "You can perceive external objects as real through neurologic processes which evolved due to physical reality, and such objects may represent either a benefit for or a danger to your survival and reproductive fitness. You have evolved to interact with your environment, and this is the way you promote or protect your survival." So you perceive a car rushing towards you as real because you must get out of the way of that car or you might die. Similarly you have to write a term paper in order to pass a course, graduate from college, and find a job to support yourself and your potential mate and offspring, then you will perceive your books and computer as real in order to go through that sequence of events and improve your chances for survival and reproduction. Now, the only problem with this evolutionary characterization of free will and external objects is the problem of altruism or self-sacrifice, as well as its "evil twin," self-destructive behavior or ideation. The first of these means that you may find yourself making choices (free will) which do not correspond to any survival or reproductive imperative. Or, you may find yourself interacting with your environment (external objects) in ways that represent no net benefit or even a net loss to your survival and reproductive fitness. This is a touchy subject because it involves all kinds of issues of culture and experience, and is beyond the scope of this post. Really the whole science of abnormal psychology has its basis in the study of behavior and thoughts that seem to have no net evolutionary advantage. Suffice it to say that I think, from a strictly evolutionary perspective, altruism as well as self-destruction are due to a kind of hysteria that leads us to freely make choices not entirely to our immediate benefit, and even to our immediate disadvantage, like going to fight in a war where we may be killed (altruism,) or like committing suicide (self-destruction.) So this hysteria, as I deem it, can be either a good or a bad thing, depending on the situation at hand. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry but what you have just written about is not philosophy. 1.THE PROBLEM OF OTHER MINDS The problem of other minds is this. If I see a machine or a robot doing something I am not perceiving something with a mind. (Presumably you have seen some of the A.I. programs which can, just about, have conversations with you as if they were real people) Obviously I can tell that I have a mind through introspection, but how can I tell that anyone else has a mind. How do I know that if I hit someone they are really in pain and not just behaving like it? 2. THE PROBLEM OF FREE WILL Nothing to do with "why". I don't care why I have free will and, as you have said, there are perfectly good evolutionary explanations. The 'problem' of free will is whether it really exists. Confused? Don't worry - it's a fairly simple argument. 1. The world consists of causal relations between objects. 2. My brain is part of that system of causal relations. 3. If the workings of my brain are following a process of cause and effect how can my will be said to be free? Attempts at discovering a truly free choice have never been particularly successful. If I choose to have a drink then my decision is not because I freely decided to drink, but because I was thirsty. Even in choosing which drink to have my choice is based on my pre-existing dispositions (e.g. "I like the taste of oranges more than the taste of plain water"). In order for an action to be entirely free it seems to need to be entirely unrelated to any external factors. Now think of what such an action would involve. It wouldn't be a free choice. It would be a random irrational action. (e.g. Jumping up on to my desk and taking all my clothes off right now would be unrelated to any external factors - not least because it is freezing in the house right now - so rather than being a 'free' action this would be an irrational action. Any free choice is made for a reason.) 3. PROBLEM OF EXTERNAL OBJECTS Once again - this is not a "why" question! All of my understanding of the outside world comes from the senses. Science knows this. We all know this. The issue is, if everything I see, taste, touch, hear, smell is merely an interpretation of the world around me, how can I know how the world actually is? Naturally I can't. Now the scientific explanation would be that my senses come close enough to the world as it actually is in order to allow for survival, but such a view relies on us knowing that there is an external world to interpret in the first place. And thus lies the crux of the problem. At this point watch the matrix. Done? Okay, the horror of this philosophical problem is even worse. It's not simply - "am I completely wrong about the world around me", but "is there a world around me to be wrong about". One philosopher, Berkeley, suggested that the whole world might simply consist of ideas and minds and that nothing would be 'physical' (in terms of being a thing-in-itself) at all! Descartes suggested that the only thing we can know for sure is that we are a thinking substance ("I think therefore I am") because I would be contradicting myself if I said "I think I don't exist". Only problem is - who's this 'I'? Our concept of identity is also based on our experiences. So all we can know is that we have thoughts/experiences. We can't actually know that there is a world in which they occur, or that there is a person to whom they occur. ---------------------------------------------- Naturally no one takes these problems seriously. They cannot be entertained if one is to get on with life properly. That is why I say they must be taken on faith. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I guess your lack of response means you agree with me? (or at least accept that you don't know enough about philosophy to continue the debate). Strange that you didn't feel you could admit that. After all that would mean accepting that I'd said something sensible, wouldn't it? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: At this point watch the matrix. Done? No.
posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
An atheist is a person that believes that there is no God. An agnostic does not believe in God but is not an atheist. An atheist is a BELIEVER in a negative and is at least as illogical as any theist. Of course apatheists don't give a damn. psikeyhackr posted by psikeyhackr |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 An agnostic is someone who is afraid to be wrong! Just insert the word "unicorn" instead of "God": - An atheist is a person that believes that there are no unicorns. - An agnostic does not believe in unicorns but is not an atheist. So this means that anyone who believes that there are no unicorns is as illogical as anyone who believes that there are unicorns? 
For quite some time, I've thought that the hardest concept for people to face is the idea that there is no god, no afterlife, no cosmic justice for our deeds and misdeeds. I now think, however, that the hardest concept for people to face is simply being wrong. If that's the case, then agnosticism is the easy way out, since you can never be wrong as an agnostic. I don't believe in god. I consider myself an atheist, even though I admit the possibility that there is a god. If it turns out there is a god, I will definitely consider myself to have been wrong. So why does this stance make me either religious or illogical? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: An agnostic is someone who is afraid to be wrong! Just insert the word "unicorn" instead of "God":
- An atheist is a person that believes that there are no unicorns. - An agnostic does not believe in unicorns but is not an atheist. The definition is flawed. An agnostic believes that even if a unicorn existed, it would be impossible for us to know about it . This does not make her/him a disbeliever. Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims, particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods or deities, are either unknown or inherently unknowable. Also see IMO → The meaning of 'agnostic' posted by ryder |
|||
|
|
|||
1, 2, 3 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 12 February 2012, 15:48 php B.B. |