Ship of Fools: Purgatory: What makes atheists doubt their atheism?

Thread: Purgatory: What makes atheists doubt their atheism? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000882

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

We've had some very honest and open discussions in Purg about challenges Christians have to their beliefs. But what gives atheists the most cause for reflection about the strength of their convictions?

Answers welcome from current atheists, ex-atheists, or views from atheists you know.

[ 15. June 2016, 18:54: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I am a scientist, and I used to be an atheist. One of the issues for me was the way science couldn't really explain one's most important experiences in a personally meaningful way. Love and grief being the most obvious examples.

A particular experience that stood out for me was whilst shadowing a speech and language therapist in a learning disability service. We met with a young man who had a profound learning disability and was blind and deaf - he was supported by a carer who was teaching him by signing onto his body and using objects of reference. There was just something beautiful about the quality of their interaction. And there is no objective way to explain it nor a scientific, logical way to justify the expense of time and resources on a man who would never have the functional level we would expect of a toddler, a sheepdog or a chimpanzee. But it was so clearly right and good, and those values have to come from somewhere.

Posted by WhateverTheySay (# 16598) on :

I used to be atheist. Then I had a number of experiences that I could only attribute to God. I looked into Christianity for a few years in my early teens, before eventually choosing to accept Jesus.

Though truth is I was only ever atheist because my parents are, and at a young age I had not considered to question my beliefs.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

It was the improbability of existance that got me in the end. I mean, I can intelectually reason that, given an infinite amount of time, things that are almost impossible will entually happen. That seems clear; but not this! The mind-blowing fact that there is all this matter and it obeys laws and there are living sentient beings, in at least one place, mixed in with it all, that love each other and suffer and die and kill each other and all that stuff. Well you couldn't make it up - unless you were God.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

Firstly - believing in a god or gods because one cannot think of an alternative is known as “belief in the god(s) of the gaps”. Human beings thought of thunder and lightning as a “gap” until we understood +ve and -ve electrical charge, we used the power of the sun as a “gap” until we understood radiation etc. etc.. Filling the gaps in knowledge with a god, any god, is a decision which involves choice. If you choose the christian god over (say) the hindu gods it matters not – you have your “gap” filled (but human knowledge - the basis for medicine etc. - has advanced not one jot).

What gives atheists the most cause for reflection about the strength of their convictions?

Conviction - a firmly held belief or opinion Can’t help because I can only speak for myself and, for me, the question does not make sense. I don’t think my atheism counts as a conviction, it’s just the linevitable result of the way I look at life, the universe and everything. I look at the world from a sceptical viewpoint. I neither need nor expect to have an answer for everything.

I grew up in Christianity, smothered in Christianity and totally oblivious to the possibility of doubt. I saw the all-pervasive control, the iron fist of hell nearly (but carefully not quite) disguised in the soft caress of the pristine kid-glove of heaven, the tribal superiority of believers and the glorious, joyful outpouring of pity for those who were going to eternal fire. And I saw that it was good.

Then I realised that it just doesn’t make sense - bits of it might pass muster but the whole is an impossible confection.

From my point of view - it isn’t a conviction that I have, what I have is the inability to fool myself that I need to have a conviction; and I suspect that I am no more responsible for that than I am for my height, my dark curly hair or my blue eyes. It’s a pity I can’t say the same about my weight!

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

Hugh, even if you don't buy into Christianity, why not deism? You can logically get to deism without relying on special revelation or prophets or anything else. If Christianity was proved to be 100% wrong tomorrow it's probably what I'd adopt.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Hugh, even if you don't buy into Christianity, why not deism? You can logically get to deism without relying on special revelation or prophets or anything else. If Christianity was proved to be 100% wrong tomorrow it's probably what I'd adopt.

1 - How do you think that I could logically get to deism?

2 - How do you envisage your Christianity might be proven 100% wrong?

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

I haven't got much time to post unfortunately, but here goes (from an ex-atheist):

There were a lot of factors, but two stand out (not actually the most intellectually defensible two, but anyway).

Firstly, for me atheism was pretty nihilist. I'm far too much of a pessimist to ever have the slightest interest in humanism. For me atheism was about accepting that life for most people throughout history had been brief, brutal and meaningless. I'm a historian by background so I never had the illusion that our fairly comfortable 20th century western existence was normative. Life was basically sad and unjust and there was no nice cosy afterlife to make it better.

Secondly, if I'm honest atheism just seemed a bit boring. My parents were very vocally atheist and I spent my student days in a very self-conciously liberal enviroment where atheism/agnosticism was the norm and hostility to Christianity was widespread. So for me atheism/agnosticism was pretty passe (to this day I'm mildly amused by people, generally formerly Christian people, who think they are being terribly daring and original by embracing atheism). If I'm honest it was just dull. Christianity had good stories, complex ethics, centuries of history, and lots of art and music and architecture, whereas the alternative seemed pretty boring and conformist. I realise that boredom and the universal tendency to rebel against one's parents aren't particularly good reasons to change belief systems, but it was probably more of a factor than I like to admit [grin]

Lastly there was just something there. Even at my most atheistic I loved just sitting quietly in churches, and went through occasional phases of reading the gospels. I couldn't have explained why at the time.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I just had a series of experiences of something which could not not exist. I actually had these experiences while doing Zen meditation, and then looked around for a spiritual practice, which could 'hold' them, and Christianity seemed to work pretty well.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Hugh, even if you don't buy into Christianity, why not deism? You can logically get to deism without relying on special revelation or prophets or anything else. If Christianity was proved to be 100% wrong tomorrow it's probably what I'd adopt.

But deism is functionally meaningless. There's no conceivable form of evidence that could support or refute it as a position. Even Russell's Teapot could theoretically be found one day, given a sufficiently strong telescope. AFAICS, deism's equivalent to giving your car a name. It doesn't change anything, but as a species we have a tendency to attribute personality and character to inanimate objects.

I don't really have any convictions, and I wonder how many of my expectations are driven by forcing things into a still roughly religion-shaped worldview, but I'll give it a go. The fact that atheism doesn't promise an objective ethical/moral standard is a frustration, but that's not an argument against it. And I can't really get my head around the Big Bang, but argument from incredulity is desperately weak, and unless I see evidence of God intervening in the world, that would only lead as far as deism, which adds nothing of any substance.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
We've had some very honest and open discussions in Purg about challenges Christians have to their beliefs. But what gives atheists the most cause for reflection about the strength of their convictions?

Answers welcome from current atheists, ex-atheists, or views from atheists you know.

Do you mean away from positive atheism or to Christianity in specific?

To get me away from atheism would take a miracle. Literally. An act of God. But God won't act. From which I conclude that if there is a God, that God either doesn't want me to believe in its existance or doesn't care. Either way it's not worth bothering with.

As for converting to Christianity, the Maker of Hell and the Judge Who Condemns People to Eternal Torment and Calls It Just is quite literally the worst moral being I can physically imagine. If I believed in the Christian God I'd be a Satanist on the grounds the curator of Hell was less evil than the judge who dares pervert the term Justice by condemning people to hell. At least I trust I'd have the strength to be a Satanist rather than bowing down and calling God Good to appease him the way the Furies were called the Kindly Ones.

Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on :

"As for converting to Christianity, the Maker of Hell and the Judge Who Condemns People to Eternal Torment and Calls It Just is quite literally the worst moral being I can physically imagine. If I believed in the Christian God I'd be a Satanist on the grounds the curator of Hell was less evil than the judge who dares pervert the term Justice by condemning people to hell. At least I trust I'd have the strength to be a Satanist rather than bowing down and calling God Good to appease him the way the Furies were called the Kindly Ones."

I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity.

I would suggest that the Christian God has rather gone out of his way not to have to throw people into hell for their behaviour. That is the whole point of Christianity ! Jesus said all manner of sin will be forgiven and no one who comes to me will be rejected. Its the people who don't want to be forgiven and don't want to admit their sin who have a problem. Even Hitler could have been forgiven in the last moments of his life. That's why the word 'gospel' means almost too good to be true. The thief on the cross next to Jesus got forgiven at the last moments of his life just for believing in Jesus. The other criminal didn't.

Every human on earth has to be honest about their failings to God. All of us mess up. I believe we do need fixing.

As for the eternal torment bit, mostly this comes from Dante's inferno. I don't see any evidence in the Bible for devils with pitch forks running around after people.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity.

I would suggest that the Christian God has rather gone out of his way not to have to throw people into hell for their behaviour. That is the whole point of Christianity !

And I claim that's ridiculous. If the Creator didn't want there to be a Hell, God wouldn't have created one. That God then gets to pretend he's being merciful by offering some people a way out of hellis the logic of the abuser "You shouldn't have made me hit you."

Ultimately only one person created Hell - and that is God. Only one person condemns people to Hell and that is God. And no act or acts that a human can undertake in an imperfect world can ever deserve eternal torment. Hitler may deserve ten thousand years of suffering (maybe more) - I'm not arguing. But Hitler doesn't deserve eternal torment.

There is a total of one sin that deserves eternal torment. And that is the sentencing of another being to eternal torment. The "good news" of the Gospel is that God may be an evil, cruel, and sadistic bastard whose justice is a parody of the term - but despite this it is possible to placate him.

quote:
As for the eternal torment bit, mostly this comes from Dante's inferno. I don't see any evidence in the Bible for devils with pitch forks running around after people.

Umm... it massively predates Dante's Inferno to the point that some morally bankrupt early Christians suggested that one of the delights of heaven was seeing the suffering of those in Hell. Jesus himself merely had people thrown in a lake of fire. The effect of which depends on the immortality of the soul.

And for some sources

quote:
Tertullian

“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause."

“What a spectacle. . .when the world. . .and its many products, shall be consumed in one great flame! How vast a spectacle then bursts upon the eye! What there excites my admiration? What my derision? Which sight gives me joy? As I see. . .illustrious monarchs. . . groaning in the lowest darkness, Philosophers. . .as fire consumes them! Poets trembling before the judgment-seat of. . .Christ! I shall hear the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; view play-actors. . .in the dissolving flame; behold wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows. . .What inquisitor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favor of seeing and exulting in such things as these? Yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.” [De Spectaculis, Chapter XXX]

quote:
Augustine

“They who shall enter into [the] joy [of the Lord] shall know what is going on outside in the outer darkness. . .The saints'. . . knowledge, which shall be great, shall keep them acquainted. . .with the eternal sufferings of the lost.” [The City of God, Book 20, Chapter 22, "What is Meant by the Good Going Out to See the Punishment of the Wicked" & Book 22, Chapter 30, "Of the Eternal Felicity of the City of God, and of the Perpetual Sabbath"]

quote:
Thomas Aquinas

In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned. [Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, "Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned," First Article, "Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned. . ."]

“The same fire” (which he decides to be material) “ torments the damned in hell and the just in purgatory…The least pain in purgatory exceeds the greatest in this life.” Summa Theo. Suppl. Qu. 100, acts. 2, n. 3.

I don't think it's exactly fair to blame Dante for Augustine, Aquinas, and Tertullian.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian
I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity.

You're not the only one!

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Arminian
I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity.
You're not the only one!

It's the dirty secret that makes most forms of Christianity metaphysically morally intolerable to me. In order to sell me the good news that we can be saved from Hell, you must first sell me the bad news that Hell exists. And in a monotheist universe there's only one entity to blame for Hell.

No, I know this isn't the bit of the message you focus on. But it underlies it.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
If the Creator didn't want there to be a Hell, God wouldn't have created one. That God then gets to pretend he's being merciful by offering some people a way out of hellis the logic of the abuser "You shouldn't have made me hit you."

Ultimately only one person created Hell - and that is God. Only one person condemns people to Hell and that is God.

Crap.

God didn't create hell. The God of everlasting love is hell. He is hell to those who have freely and persistently chosen to hate him. He does not hate them. In fact, the more he loves them, the more they are tormented. That is why it says that "our God IS a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29).

You stated on another thread:

quote:
The God of the NT is far more distant, condemning people to be thrown into a lake of fire en masse without accepting arguments.

Who said that he does not accept arguments? Let's suppose a particular person comes before God after dying, and he presents all his arguments in his defence. Let's suppose God accepts all his arguments: "You've put a good case. I respect that. I do not condemn you. Welcome into my presence of everlasting love".

So the bloke is eternally exposed to the wonderful and glorious love of God. God has done nothing evil to him at all. But there's a problem. This person hates the love of God. Behind all his arguments there is an evil heart that is full of arrogance and conceit. He looks down on others. He despises the weak. He has contempt for anyone who doesn't see his point of view. What do you think his experience of the eternal love of God will be? Bliss or hell?

I suggest the latter.

Why does it say in Revelation 14:10 that the wicked are tormented "in the presence of the Lamb", which is a clear reference to Jesus Christ crucified (see Revelation 5:6)? The symbol of the lamb is significant. A lamb is the most docile of creatures, and what could be more "harmless" than a slaughtered lamb? The God who presides over the experience of those who are wilfully evil is the God who is the ultimate victim. This the very opposite of a sadistic torturer.

This biblical evidence proves that your analysis of hell is a straw man.

So carry on with your "dirty secret" conspiracy theory. AFAIAC it's BS.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

To get me away from atheism would take a miracle. Literally. An act of God. But God won't act. From which I conclude that if there is a God, that God either doesn't want me to believe in its existance or doesn't care. Either way it's not worth bothering with.

As for converting to Christianity, the Maker of Hell and the Judge Who Condemns People to Eternal Torment and Calls It Just is quite literally the worst moral being I can physically imagine. If I believed in the Christian God I'd be a Satanist on the grounds the curator of Hell was less evil than the judge who dares pervert the term Justice by condemning people to hell. At least I trust I'd have the strength to be a Satanist rather than bowing down and calling God Good to appease him the way the Furies were called the Kindly Ones.

Are you confusing the God who created man with the God who man created?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Crap.

God didn't create hell. The God of everlasting love is hell.

You said it, not me.

To me, hell does not exist. And by trying to convince me there is a hell, you are trying to convince me that this universe is a far, far nastier one than either one with life being it or one where strange beings from the outer dark eat your soul.

And the point you are ducking is that if you are a bible believing Christian, God Judges. Not is. Judges. God decides who gets punished. Note that word decides.

quote:
Who said that he does not accept arguments?

Many, many Christians. And God's perfection and omniscience. If God is truly omniscient then he knows what he will decide before any argument is ever raised. God doesn't change his mind (to do so would mean that the original decision was less than perfect) - he's just going through the motions.

quote:
What do you think his experience of the eternal love of God will be? Bliss or hell?

Wonder and amazement if what you are saying is true and God genuinely loves him. Speaking from events I've seen when people have been convinced that they are loved and are worthy of being loved. If on the other hand God is harsh and wrathful and instead of loving people tries to force them into a set mould then it will be hell. Because God rather than loving who they are and trying to help them grow is trying to force them to be something.

quote:
Why does it say in Revelation 14:10 that the wicked are tormented "in the presence of the Lamb", which is a clear reference to Jesus Christ crucified (see Revelation 5:6)?

Let's quote the whole verse for starters. And the verses from either side.

quote:
Revelation 14: 9-11
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

You'll note that they are being tormented in the presence of the lamb not by the lamb. What they are being tormented by is explicitely fire and brimstone. The nice parts of God shall merely not look away from the torments inflicted by the wrath of God.

And it is explicitely the wrath of God that is doing the tormenting, not merely the being in the presence of the lamb. If the text had said something like "And on sight of the lamb of God the wicked shall fall to their knees, their tears burning down their cheeks" you'd have a point. But the torments in question aren't ones of being unable to bear the presence of the lamb. They are ones of fire and brimstone.

quote:
The God who presides over the experience of those who are wilfully evil is the God who is the ultimate victim. This the very opposite of a sadistic torturer.

Yeaaaaahhhhhh. On the one side we have God with all the power who is explicitley tormenting with fire and brimstone and having the angels look on. On the other we have the person being tortured without rest.

And you are trying to tell me that the person who both has all the power and is explicitely inflicting the torments in your own source is the victim. Right.

quote:
This biblical evidence proves that your analysis of hell is a straw man.

Given quite how selective your quoting of a partial verse was, I'm saying not a strawman. I'm saying you are selectively quoting, as I believe I have demonstrated, in an attempt to avoid facing what your own text writes about your God. He doesn't torture even in your verses with his presence. He has people tortured with fire and brimstone however mild he seems.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why does it say in Revelation 14:10 that the wicked are tormented "in the presence of the Lamb", which is a clear reference to Jesus Christ crucified (see Revelation 5:6)?

Because Jesus likes to watch? The verse you cite is very clear that the torment comes not from the presence of the Lamb, but from the "burning sulfur" [NIV] or "fire and brimstone" [KJV].

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Are you confusing the God who created man with the God who man created?

Possibly. But given I don't believe the God who created man exists, I can only go with one one presented in the Bible and in mainstream Christian teaching. There's a reason the best atheist evangelism tool going is to tell people to actually read the bible.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
...From my point of view - it isn’t a conviction that I have, what I have is the inability to fool myself that I need to have a conviction!...

Exactly.

I did the Christian thing and did it well for decades. I even came back to it once after leaving it.

After encountering Higher Biblical Criticism and other things, my beliefs were shook to the roots. I can't unring that bell, or won't.

The best I could imagine myself ever doing is some form of nebulous god-thing being out there, but that hardly fits the bill of Christianity. it barely fits any religion really. I certainly can't buy anything in the bible as "true" and more than I can believe that Shiva is true, or Baal, or the sun-god. I would constantly be asking me which god to put in the gaps.

I think that Penn Jillette (and others) dialed it in that we don't know. We don't know if Christianity is right, if Hindu is right, or a teapot. But I can't see putting a belief in any god into the gap. I'd always be asking which god.

Tangent

I always love these "I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity."

Y'all realize that there are a LOT of forms of Christianity, and that if someone says something about Christianity, the problem is, the Christianity that person is describing IS Christianity. Just because you might be in one of the good sects, it doesn't mean that the bad sects don't exist. In fact, they are legion. You get to be drug into their badness by being on the same team in these conversations. Sure, you can point out you want them off your team, and good on you for wanting that, but they are still part of the team. Denying they exist is absurd.

In the U.S. we have Southern Baptists, who hate gays and repress women. Catholics, little different. We have people that don't give their kids blood transfusions. We have Mormen. Etc etc. It is not a nice Christianity filled with love and peace. Yes, we also have UU, but then our other nutjobs don't consider them Christian because they are too...whatever...or not enough, which itself says something about Christianity.

/tangent

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
if you are a bible believing Christian

It's quite a big "if". It also needs an explanation of "believing", and frankly ignores any idea of a hermeneutic the way the following arguments are presented.

The "god" that many Christians seem to believe in is very easy to disbelieve in. I am an atheist in terms of that "god". But I do have hope in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Don't ask me why on this thread as it really is quite irrelevant here. This thread is not about me, so I'll promptly piss off.

This has all drifted a long way from the OP...

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
What do you think his experience of the eternal love of God will be? Bliss or hell?
Wonder and amazement if what you are saying is true and God genuinely loves him. Speaking from events I've seen when people have been convinced that they are loved and are worthy of being loved. If on the other hand God is harsh and wrathful and instead of loving people tries to force them into a set mould then it will be hell. Because God rather than loving who they are and trying to help them grow is trying to force them to be something.

So evil doesn't actually exist? Is that it? People only destroy other people's lives because they feel unloved, and once they come into the experience of ultimate love they will, of course, be the lovely people they really were in their "heart of hearts"?

No wonder the atheistic influenced society we live in treats criminals with kid gloves. They're such poor misunderstood darlings, aren't they?

And I can just imagine a certain Austrian gentleman entering into an intense consciousness of God's infinite love for each precious Jewish person, and that fine fellow being overcome with such contrition for the error of his ways, because really deep down he didn't really have anything against those people. He was just so tragically unloved!

Gimme a break, man!

quote:
You'll note that they are being tormented in the presence of the lamb not by the lamb. What they are being tormented by is explicitely fire and brimstone.

Good for you for attempting a bit of biblical exegesis. Pity though that you didn't bother to think about the method of communication employed in Revelation 14. It's full of symbolism, in case you hadn't noticed. Hence the reference to the "lamb". And so it does seem rather odd to me that you should read "fire and brimstone" literally, especially considering that literal fire would not torture a person forever, but destroy him in a matter of seconds. And you seem to have forgotten my reference to Hebrews 12:29. The presence of God is a consuming fire. So God - the same God who has revealed himself through Jesus Christ "the Lamb" - is the agent of torment - in other words, the same reality which is bliss for some people is hell for others. Nothing to do with God being selective, and everything to do with our response to God.

So does it not seem rather strange that the eternal victim of evil should also be the God who "tortures" people? I suppose someone with a huge chip on his shoulder (and who clearly has a desperate personal need to build a case against God) might argue that this is God's "revenge" for the cross. But in that case, it would seem rather strange that God would continue to torment people while still, as it were, "nailed to the cross" (which is what the symbolism of "the Lamb" indicates). The passage really indicates that God is an eternal victim of evil and never the perpetrator.

A bit of sensible and consistent exegesis reveals that my interpretation is correct. The wicked are tortured by their own arrogance, not by any sadism on God's part.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

These threads often seem to reverse by 180 degrees. It seemed to start off as 'why do atheists doubt their atheism?', and now it seems to have become 'why do atheists doubt religion'!

Ah well, there must be a reason why this often happens. Maybe the original idea is uncomfortable or unthinkable!

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I did the Christian thing and did it well for decades. I even came back to it once after leaving it.

After encountering Higher Biblical Criticism and other things, my beliefs were shook to the roots. I can't unring that bell, or won't........

Tangent

I always love these "I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity."

Y'all realize that there are a LOT of forms of Christianity, and that if someone says something about Christianity, the problem is, the Christianity that person is describing IS Christianity. Just because you might be in one of the good sects, it doesn't mean that the bad sects don't exist. In fact, they are legion. You get to be drug into their badness by being on the same team in these conversations. Sure, you can point out you want them off your team, and good on you for wanting that, but they are still part of the team. Denying they exist is absurd.......

/tangent

It sounds as if you're looking for certainty and nothing less than a definitive agreed Christian theology before allowing it any credibility. The Nicene creed's as close as we've ever got. God leaves us with more questions than answers. That doesn't mean that God is a God of the gaps or that God doesn't exist.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Why does it say in Revelation 14:10 that the wicked are tormented "in the presence of the Lamb", which is a clear reference to Jesus Christ crucified (see Revelation 5:6)?
Because Jesus likes to watch?

Obviously that's the case, if that is what you want to think.

You're a morally responsible free agent, so go ahead and believe it. No one is forcing you not to - especially God.

(BTW, see my previous comment about the fire and brimstone - and the same applies to the sulphur)

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

For shipmates who want to discuss why they don't believe in God, Christianity, or any any other form of theism I've started a new thread for you here .

Perhaps we can keep this thread focused on the subject in the o/p

Posted by Blue Scarf Menace (# 13051) on :

In the little Quaker book Advice and Queries, the question is posed, “Consider the possibility you may me wrong”. At some point during my atheist days that question entered into, and remains, in my head. Out of that question came the questions, “What if there is a God?” and “If there is even the remotest possibility that there is a God, what should I do about it?” Out of that springs my belief.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It sounds as if you're looking for certainty and nothing less than a definitive agreed Christian theology before allowing it any credibility. The Nicene creed's as close as we've ever got. God leaves us with more questions than answers. That doesn't mean that God is a God of the gaps or that God doesn't exist.

Doesn't mean he does, either.

Is it really too much to ask for logical consistency, and believability?

I don't expect Christianity to be a definitively agreed upon theology, in fact, it's been my observation that quite the contrary is true. It has also been my observation that a lot of Christians try to force their theology on other Christians. It's a bug and a feature.

What I do expect is for something professing "love" that it be loving, not gay bashing, woman hating, etc etc. I know, it's a lot to ask. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seemed to start off as 'why do atheists doubt their atheism?'

"It seemed", seems to be the problem. I was a little unsure of what was being asked myself.

I personally do not doubt my atheism. Perhaps that's why some of us are failing to answer the question to specification. I can't imagine re-believing the unbelievable. It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist. I really doubt it will happen

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And I can just imagine a certain Austrian gentleman entering into an intense consciousness of God's infinite love for each precious Jewish person, and that fine fellow being overcome with such contrition for the error of his ways, because really deep down he didn't really have anything against those people. He was just so tragically unloved!

Whaddaya mean, "unloved"? Your whole premise is that he had the love of the omnipotent creator of the Universe. I can't think of anything more likely to give the Austrian gentleman you refer to a warm fuzzy feeling than more than confirmation that God has a deep and abiding affection for him.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These threads often seem to reverse by 180 degrees. It seemed to start off as 'why do atheists doubt their atheism?', and now it seems to have become 'why do atheists doubt religion'!

Ah well, there must be a reason why this often happens. Maybe the original idea is uncomfortable or unthinkable!

I suspected as much when I read HughWillRidmee's non answer to the question. The thread entitled "Can Atheism develop an epistemology to live by?" spun off into something else entirely. This one seems to be disappearing down the same rabbit trail. If we started a third thread on atheism would something similar happen?

It would be nice to see people like HughWillRidmee, The Great Gumby, Justinian, Mad Geo and Crœsos answered the bloody question rather then tell us why they don't believe in God. If the thread was entitled "Why I don't believe in God" then their responses would be relevant. But it's not called that.

So what makes atheists doubt their atheism? I've encountered quite a bit of thought within Christianity on doubt (for example, http://www.rzim.eu/doubt-training-day-oxford-audio). Is there such a response found within atheism? Or are atheists so rational that they don't doubt?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
One of the issues for me was the way science couldn't really explain one's most important experiences in a personally meaningful way. Love and grief being the most obvious examples.

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
It was the improbability of existance that got me in the end.

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Lastly there was just something there.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just had a series of experiences of something which could not not exist...and then looked around for a spiritual practice, which could 'hold' them, and Christianity seemed to work pretty well.

These statements are moving! Thank you. [Angel]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Going back to the OP, perhaps we might consider C. S. Lewis' testamony:

C S Lewis' Conversion to Christianity (from Wiki)

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
[QUOTE] Or are atheists so rational that they don't doubt?

Atheism that is.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I'd be interested in more doubts which atheists might have (or did have in the past).

I can't really say that I've ever been an atheist, but there seemed to be a barrage of doubts attacking me through my late teens and early twenties.

The thought of giving up on God and embracing atheism was, to me, too horrible to contemplate - no way was it in any sense "good news". My natural response was to search out apologetic writings and philosophies to reassure myself that my (sometimes ailing) christianity was reasonable.

Some of the works I found were better than others, so I had to become discerning. Even all these years later, I'm still not finished - I probably will never formulate all my findings into a book, and even if I could I doubt I would convince many, but then again they only have to be good enough for me.

But, back to the topic, at least I am finding that some of my apologetics tie in nicely with others' (on the other side of the fence) reasons for doubting atheism, possibly even for converting.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:

It would be nice to see people like HughWillRidmee, The Great Gumby, Justinian, Mad Geo and Crœsos answered the bloody question...

So what makes atheists doubt their atheism?

Asked and answered:

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

I personally do not doubt my atheism. Perhaps that's why some of us are failing to answer the question to specification. I can't imagine re-believing the unbelievable. It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist. I really doubt it will happen

Any other questions?

I often wonder what the ratio of atheists that deconverted then reconverted is, compared to those that were never converted then converted. From my admittedly casual observation, the people that de-converted tend not to go back. But I freely acknowledge it is anecdotal evidence. C.S. Lewis was apparently an exception...

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These threads often seem to reverse by 180 degrees. It seemed to start off as 'why do atheists doubt their atheism?', and now it seems to have become 'why do atheists doubt religion'!

Ah well, there must be a reason why this often happens. Maybe the original idea is uncomfortable or unthinkable!

The reason may be the fact that God is not religion [Smile]

Rapter's Eye wrote "It sounds as if you're looking for certainty and nothing less than a definitive agreed Christian theology before allowing it any credibility. The Nicene creed's as close as we've ever got. God leaves us with more questions than answers"

The Nicene creed was written by men, it does not fulfil the promise of God which is to create a new mind and spirit in a person.

Read the testaments of Paul, who declared he had followed the way Jesus taught, received all knowledge, understanding and wisdom by way of spirit. He declared that he was taught by no man and when speaking with the other Apostles
found the word he spoke was the same as these others, having also been taught Truth by God.

If Saul of Tarsus; a very religious man; was saved by following the way Jesus taught; if he was transformed by the works of God; if he received the new mind and spirit of Christ; is
there not but this one way of salvation, and should not all mankind follow this same way Paul declared he had followed?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The thought of giving up on God and embracing atheism was, to me, too horrible to contemplate - no way was it in any sense "good news". My natural response was to search out apologetic writings and philosophies to reassure myself that my (sometimes ailing) christianity was reasonable.

Have you considered that the "does this make me feel sad?" test may not be the best way to test the accuracy of a proposition?

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

Man, this thread went downhill fast.

I guess their answer to the original question is feigned emotional outrage, biblical copypasta, and wooden literalism. Quelle surprise.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

@Mad Geo - I think we've all gathered by now that some atheists have never doubted their convictions (either that or they won't admit it).

But there are others who have, and we have had a few responses from them already.

Why do you feel the need to evangelise your atheism, repeating the same quote twice? If someone doesn't see things your way, since you believe we'll all just be annihilated in the end anyway, why should it matter to you?

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

Asked and answered:

Apologies.

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

I often wonder what the ratio of atheists that deconverted then reconverted is, compared to those that were never converted then converted. From my admittedly casual observation, the people that de-converted tend not to go back. But I freely acknowledge it is anecdotal evidence. C.S. Lewis was apparently an exception...

A.N. Wilson would be another, eh, exception.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist

If this was your understanding of God, that he's comparable to Santa Claus, then no wonder you're an atheist.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

Mad Geo's sig is ""Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

I find people will believe almost anything if they want it to be true, or are afraid it might be.
I wonder why that is?

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Well, Mark, can I call you Mark?

I was asked a direct question, which I had answered, and now has been acknowledged. Excuse the hell outta me for being thorough. I was going to shut up after that, but since now you've irritated me, I'll say more.

Perhaps the problem is that there is an inherent assumption on the part of theists that atheists SHOULD doubt themselves? Or is it that theists cannot believe that atheists might not doubt, since THEY do? Hmmmmm.

I don't need an actual answer to that.

I would actually modify my earlier position, upon further consideration. I am not sure there are gods, so I could technically be called an agnostic, which I suppose is a form of doubt about atheism.

But I don't choose to place a god in the hole of that uncertainty. My default is to assume there ISN'T a god there, which is why I'm an atheist.

I know, it's complicated.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist
If this was your understanding of God, that he's comparable to Santa Claus, then no wonder you're an atheist.

Yeah, he just knows when you've been sleeping, knows when you're awake, and knows if you've been bad or good. Any resemblence is purely coincidental! [Big Grin]

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist
If this was your understanding of God, that he's comparable to Santa Claus, then no wonder you're an atheist.
Yeah, he just knows when you've been sleeping, knows when you're awake, and knows if you've been bad or good. Any resemblence is purely coincidental!

Yeah, I can also safely assume you don't know what you're talking about, either. Having a discussion with you about the nature of God would be like trying to teach calculus to someone who can't even count yet.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Unreformed.

Try not to stretch an analogy too far. I'm trying to keep it simple here.

But frankly, anytime an atheist starts talking, theists start looking for reasons there is something wrong with us. There's nothing WRONG with us. We just don't see why your god is better than any other god is better than no god. It's not like your god improves anything in my world or worldview. Quite the contrary. Getting rid of theism was very liberating.

Rosina
People are afraid of death. IMO Religion gives them false hope that death isn't what it is. Final.

Someone earlier mentioned nihilism and atheism. What they don't realize is that if atheism is nihilistic (and dont know that it has to be), it doesn't matter. If life is without meaning in atheism, and atheism is true, then life in theism is meaningless, it's just deluded that it isn't. I know, Pascal's rolling in his grave right now. LOL

I digress.

Anyway, people asking the OP question, feel free to ignore my ramblings. I'm just discussing OTHER questions that came up.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

Perhaps the problem is that there is an inherent assumption on the part of theists that atheists SHOULD doubt themselves? Or is it that theists cannot believe that atheists might not doubt, since THEY do? Hmmmmm.

Perhaps. But it seem to me that at least some of the Christians here think that doubt is a reasonable position for anyone to take given the correct circumstances. After all, you only doubt that which you already believe. And this is why there is an assumption that doubt applies to atheists as well.

Now if atheists don't doubt then I suggest we start another thread along the lines of "As an athiest I have never doubted my worldview and here is why".

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I know, it's complicated.

It appears so.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Mad Geo

Just so you know, I would welcome the certainity that death was the complete and final end. I might even be more ready to commit suicide if you could guarantee that. Unfortunately I have this niggling doubt.

Yes I know I am in the minority, but I think you need to be aware that for some annihilation is wishful thinking.

Jengie

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
But frankly, anytime an atheist starts talking, theists start looking for reasons there is something wrong with us. There's nothing WRONG with us.

There's nothing wrong with you, per se.

I don't have a problem with atheists who learn the Catholic, Christian concept of who God is.

No, really. That's perfectly fair. Nietzsche perfectly understood (as much as a man can) what Christianity is, and what the nature of the Christian God is, and he rejected it. But he was actually rejecting God, not strawgod. He despised and hated Christianity for what it really was, not what he thought it was.

What's more Nietzsche, fully understood and appreciated the implications of what abandoning Christianity and its worldview really meant, both on a personal and societal level. Most modern atheists don't.

[ 16. July 2012, 21:07: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Reformed

I have 20+ years of theology and Christianity. through University, and beyond. I am reasonably confident I, at minimum, can keep up with your mythology. But then anyone that calls theology equivalent to calculus has a seriously overvalued idea of how concrete theology is.

I can count AND do the "calculus." Problem is, the nature of god "calculus" is based on what? A fiction of a mythology based on lies, and falsified evidence.

Is the nature of god, your version? Or mine? Or Catholics? The Popes? Which Pope? Is it Vishnu? Buddha? The rock under the pond? Which version?

You're trying to nail jello to the wall. You can't tell me about your jello as it slides into a pool on the floor.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
...A.N. Wilson would be another, eh, exception.

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. [Big Grin]

New Statesman - A N Wison "Why I believe again"

@Mad Geo - You're welcome to call me Mark - It is interesting that you at least acknowledge that you cannot be sure that there are no gods, but you believe it is impossible (at this present time) to have any revelation of these beings, if they exist, yes?

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Reformed

I have 20+ years of theology and Christianity. through University, and beyond..

That's nice. I drive a Corvette and have a supermodel girlfriend.

(NOTE: The above is written in jest)

[ 16. July 2012, 21:15: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Mad Geo

Just so you know, I would welcome the certainity that death was the complete and final end. I might even be more ready to commit suicide if you could guarantee that. Unfortunately I have this niggling doubt.

Yes I know I am in the minority, but I think you need to be aware that for some annihilation is wishful thinking.

Jengie

Niggling doubt about what?

It's so funny to me this inherent assumption that ONE religion has to be the right one. What if your niggling doubt is based on the wrong religion?

Do the gods really get pissed and throw you into whatever form of hell ones believes in if one commits suicide?

I personally don't think suicide is a good idea, having considered it strongly, since we only get one trip, but YMMV. I am prepared to do so, under extreme circumstances, but I doubt those will happen any time soon.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Just simply that there is life after death. That is all the doubt I need.

Jengie

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
It's so funny to me this inherent assumption that ONE religion has to be the right one. What if your niggling doubt is based on the wrong religion?

Here's the thing, MattGeo. As a Catholic I'm allowed to believe (and even told to) that all religions, especially but not only pre-Christian ones, have a spark of the divine in them. The logos spermatikos. They get at least part of the way there. Some more than others, but they all do.

You, as an atheist, have to believe that 98%+ people who ever lived are all superstitious deluded morons and you, MadGeo, have it all figured out.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Just to add:
It is the fact of existing that seems in many ways too much to bear, to be certain that at some time that would cease, is my idea of bliss. But as long as there is some chance of eternity being for real I have to take my pay my money and take my pick.

Jengie

[ 16. July 2012, 21:23: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
- It is interesting that you at least acknowledge that you cannot be sure that there are no gods, but you believe it is impossible (at this present time) to have any revelation of these beings, if they exist, yes?

Of course one can't be sure there are no gods. One can't be sure of anything, at its most fundamental level. But I don't go rebelieving in Santa Claus because of that "doubt." I don't fill the doubt with a non-entity. I fill it with "Huh, that's really improbable, like gravity stopping, the sun blowing up in my lifetime, and Faeries in the Garden."

I can't prove a negative. But then I don't make life decisions on the assumption that something IS there that has no evidence whatsoever. Or worse, something that even the believers can't agree on, AT ALL. LOL

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

Someone with theological training at a university is comparing the Christian concept of God to fairies in the garden. Uh-huh.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
It's so funny to me this inherent assumption that ONE religion has to be the right one. What if your niggling doubt is based on the wrong religion?
Here's the thing, MattGeo. As a Catholic I'm allowed to believe (and even told to) that all religions, especially but not only pre-Christian ones, have a spark of the divine in them. The logos spermatikos. They get at least part of the way there. Some more than others, but they all do.

You, as an atheist, have to believe that 98%+ people who ever lived are all superstitious deluded morons and you, MadGeo, have it all figured out.

Ah, the Catholic out. Yes, I'm familiar with it.
One religion to rule them all, one religion to bind them. How gracious of you. I'm sure the other religions approve of your magnanimity. Yes, I'm rolling on the floor laughing right now.

As a scientist, I have to know that MOST of all the people that ever lived believed that earth was flat...

Yeah, I'm not gonna join them in that belief either.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
As a scientist, I have to know that MOST of all the people that ever lived believed that earth was flat...

This is flat-out false. It's always great to watch those who say things like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to uncritically swallow modern myths like "most of all the people who ever lived thought the earth was flat".

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[QUOTE]
As a scientist, I have to know that MOST of all the people that ever lived believed that earth was flat...

While I take your point, If you atually think about your statement for a moment I think you will find it doesn't make any sense.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Someone with theological training at a university is comparing the Christian concept of God to fairies in the garden. Uh-huh.

Doubt it if you want. But you do so at your own peril. I'm a huge fan of Bart Ehrman, C.S. Lewis, and certainly the Bible itself. It is a fascinating mythological document.

Us atheists often study religion. Some of us intently. Some of us got blown OUT of the church by that study.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Doubt it if you want. But you do so at your own peril. I'm a huge fan of Bart Ehrman, C.S. Lewis

You studied theology at a unviersity and you think the height of scholarship is Bart Ehrman (a textual critic, not a theologian) and C.S. Lewis (a popular writer)? [Killing me]

This is "intense study"? Are you a parody?

quote:
and certainly the Bible itself.

And in the original King James English, too!

[Roll Eyes]

[ 16. July 2012, 21:35: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...Or worse, something that even the believers can't agree on, AT ALL. LOL

They are all agreed on something - that God IS - shouldn't that be our starting point?

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

Seriously, MadGeo, do you want to retract your ridiculous statement about "most of the people who ever lived thought the earth was flat"? This is my Christian charity talking. I'll give you time to retract it before you look all that stupid.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

*Googles flat earth mythology*

Fascinating, see now I learned something from y'all, and I am man enough to admit it. I KNOW, how rare is that?

But the ANALOGY of the flat earth remains, and you people know how to stretch an analogy till it breaks, and miss the point entirely.
Not that I'm surprised.

Insert whatever debunked idea that mankind shared into that point and carry on.

I almost called our Unreformed on the REAL issue, which is that he tried to sneak in an Argumentum ad populum, that 98% of the world believes in Santa Claus, so I should believe in Santa Claus. As stupid as that sounds when I just said it, is as absurd as it sounds to me when he said it.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
I almost called our Unreformed on the REAL issue, which is that he tried to sneak in an Argumentum ad populum, that 98% of the world believes in Santa Claus, so I should believe in Santa Claus.

For the umpteenth time, God is not like Santa Claus, or fairies in the bottom of the garden, or a giant teapot, or a flying spaghetti monster, or whatever other tired, inaccurate metaphor you want to use. I'll give you a bit of time to figure out why.

And good on you for retracting the flat earth thing. It's not the only thing you'll learn here, I hope.

[ 16. July 2012, 21:45: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Gotta give me time to type there, buckwheat. I know your anxious to pull out your next ad hominem, but I only type material for you to distort so fast.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I suspected as much when I read HughWillRidmee's non answer to the question. The thread entitled "Can Atheism develop an epistemology to live by?" spun off into something else entirely. This one seems to be disappearing down the same rabbit trail. If we started a third thread on atheism would something similar happen?

It would be nice to see people like HughWillRidmee, The Great Gumby, Justinian, Mad Geo and Crœsos answered the bloody question rather then tell us why they don't believe in God. If the thread was entitled "Why I don't believe in God" then their responses would be relevant. But it's not called that.

So what makes atheists doubt their atheism? I've encountered quite a bit of thought within Christianity on doubt (for example, http://www.rzim.eu/doubt-training-day-oxford-audio). Is there such a response found within atheism? Or are atheists so rational that they don't doubt?

Like MadGeo, this has been asked and answered.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Do you mean away from positive atheism or to Christianity in specific?

To get me away from atheism would take a miracle. Literally. An act of God. But God won't act. From which I conclude that if there is a God, that God either doesn't want me to believe in its existance or doesn't care. Either way it's not worth bothering with.

I also produced an atheist epistemology in the question about atheist epistemology.

I doubt my atheism sometimes in the direction of panentheism or deism (or occasionally polytheism). But I really can't go in the direction of supposedly omnibenevolent monotheism - an omnimax god collapses in a puff of logic and the question of Theodicy has no good answer.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

I didn't use the Spaghetti Monster yet. Don't tempt me.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...Or worse, something that even the believers can't agree on, AT ALL. LOL
They are all agreed on something - that God IS - shouldn't that be our starting point?

Actually a very vociferous NO. They do NOT agree on that, or at least 98% of all Christians I talk to (yes, that was for humor).

Let me see if I can find a god that you would NOT agree was "something". Baal perhaps? Some people worship trees? Some people worship gain penises. Are you agreeing they agree on their god and yours? Vice Versa?

I think it materially matters that you would not think their idea of a god, is your idea of a god. That you both believe in gods, seems a rather thin point (if there is one) if theirs is a penis, and yours is a dude that died on a stick.

That a god-spot theoretically exists seems like it seems hardly relevant. My appendix still exists and I don't really want it either.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Gotta give me time to type there, buckwheat. I know your anxious to pull out your next ad hominem, but I only type material for you to distort so fast.

Aaaaand he doesn't know what ad hominem means, either. This just doesn't seem to be your day, MadGeo.

I'll be leaving this thread for now, though, so don't worry. Maybe when I come back you'll have finally figured out, after 20 years, one of the most basic concepts of Christianity possible, namely what we mean when we say "God".

I won't hold my breath, though.

BTW, where did you study your theology? First Fundy Bible College?

[ 16. July 2012, 21:52: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

OK, so getting back on track. Are there any other atheists who have doubted? By my count we are up to 1 out of 5.

(I've include Mad Geo even though I couldn't locate the relevant section that dealt with his(?) doubt about atheism.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Let me see if I can find a god that you would NOT agree was "something". Baal perhaps? Some people worship trees? Some people worship gain penises. Are you agreeing they agree on their god and yours? Vice Versa?

I think it materially matters that you would not think their idea of a god, is your idea of a god. That you both believe in gods, seems a rather thin point (if there is one) if theirs is a penis, and yours is a dude that died on a stick.

Sorry, what are we talking about here? Pantheism? Fertility cults? What? I don't see what your point or how it relates to what was written. I just see the use of cheap debating tactics.

As for the dude that died on a stick. Yes, he did just that.

quote:
Jesus of the Scars

If we have never sought, we seek Thee now;
Thine eyes burn through the dark, our only stars;
We must have sight of thorn-pricks on Thy brow;
We must have Thee, O Jesus of the Scars.

The heavens frighten us; they are too calm;
In all the universe we have no place.
Our wounds are hurting us; where is the balm?
Lord Jesus, by Thy Scars we claim Thy grace.

If when the doors are shut, Thou drawest near,
Only reveal those hands, that side of Thine;
We know today what wounds are; have no fear;
Show us Thy Scars; we know the countersign.

The other gods were strong, but Thou wast weak;
They rode, but Thou didst stumble to a throne;
But to our wounds only God’s wounds can speak,
And not a god has wounds, but Thou alone.

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Aaaaand he doesn't know what ad hominem means, either. This just doesn't seem to be your day, MadGeo.

I'll be leaving this thread for now, though, so don't worry. Maybe when I come back you'll have finally figured out, after 20 years, one of the most basic concepts of Christianity possible, namely what we mean when we say "God".

I won't hold my breath, though.

BTW, where did you study your theology? First Fundy Bible College?

Breath in. Exhale. 1 Peter 3 15-16 and all that.

[ 16. July 2012, 22:06: Message edited by: Squibs ]

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Reformed:

The reason we use metaphors like Santa Claus, is that we cannot take your "Nature of god" seriously, but just for shits and grins, I'll humor you.

Here's the "nature of God" I remember...

God is all powerful, all loving, all knowing. God remembers the sparrows count and the hairs on our heads. Jesus died for our sins, of a virgin, healed everybody, never got mad except in that Temple scene which was TOTALLY justified, he was man yet god, raised the dead, died on a friday, raised on a sunday, chatted with his peeps, went to heaven and will return for the True Believers.
God loves us SO much that he killed everyone on earth once because while he loves us, he hates the hell out of sinners, which is you know, everybody but Jonah and his peeps.
This guy Paul had a special corner on Jesus message, and brought the Message to the Heathens. Didn't need to have a certain kind of foreskin to join the club anymore. Women were okay in a leadership position, oh WAIT, yes that's right god changed his mind on that whole mess. Certain sects think that God will close the door on the heathens and Big Stuff will happen right before he comes back. Others think theyre gonna be Raptured. Etc. etc.

Did I get most of that right? Maybe I should just shorten it down to "Jesus Loves me this I know"? Is THAT the "Nature of God", or do you want to enlighten me with some more of the tons of pucky I was fed as a child through university.

I'm ALL ears, what, oh WISE ONE, did I miss, in my 40+ years of thinking about it? I'm SURE I must be deluded.

Oh wait, no. I didn't miss anything. LOL

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So evil doesn't actually exist? Is that it? People only destroy other people's lives because they feel unloved, and once they come into the experience of ultimate love they will, of course, be the lovely people they really were in their "heart of hearts"?

Oh, evil exists. It would take a near-perfect love to get through to someone like Adolf Hitler. Interesting tha tno one is capable of that in your theology...

quote:
No wonder the atheistic influenced society we live in treats criminals with kid gloves. They're such poor misunderstood darlings, aren't they?

This athestic society treats criminals like human beings because we do not have the arrogance to suppose we are necessarily right. We do not hide behind a supposedly infalliable morality.

We also look at the standard theories of punishment and note that retribution achieves nothing other than the coarsening of the soul that torture inflicts on the torturer, and that deterrance often doesn't work unless the crime was one calculated out (financial crimes always need to face a punishment significantly greater than the money stolen).

quote:
Good for you for attempting a bit of biblical exegesis. Pity though that you didn't bother to think about the method of communication employed in Revelation 14. It's full of symbolism, in case you hadn't noticed.

I had. But you have to deny the literal and plain meaning of the text and the way Christianity has treated the concept of hell for a long long time to twist the text into your desired reading. Not that I blame you - the historical Christian tradition and the plain meaning of the text shows God for a monster.

quote:
So does it not seem rather strange that the eternal victim of evil should also be the God who "tortures" people?

When you try to cast the most powerful being possible in the role of victim rather than perpetrator you have a problem. The eternal victims of evil are those condemned by God to Hell.

quote:
I suppose someone with a huge chip on his shoulder (and who clearly has a desperate personal need to build a case against God) might argue that this is God's "revenge" for the cross.

Nothing of the sort. God was a sadistic monster in the old testament. He quite literally mind controlled Pharaoh to give himself an excuse to torture the Egyptians. Hell is because the God presented in the bible is petty and graceless, and what grace he has normally comes from associating with humans.

quote:
A bit of sensible and consistent exegesis reveals that my interpretation is correct. The wicked are tortured by their own arrogance, not by any sadism on God's part.

Where "A bit of sensible and consistent exegesis" means twisting the literal words on the page to deny that it is unambiguously and directly ascribed to the wrath of God, and perverting the very notion of the term victim so that the All-Highest can be victimised by those with no power to stand against him.

Next you'll be supporting the Wall-Mart managers who say their minimum wage staff are overpaid and they are underpaid.

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
For the umpteenth time, God is not like Santa Claus, or fairies in the bottom of the garden, or a giant teapot, or a flying spaghetti monster, or whatever other tired, inaccurate metaphor you want to use. I'll give you a bit of time to figure out why.

That all the ones listed can exist but don't rather than are logically impossible?

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

LOL! He forgets his earlier ad hominem, and then drops another one. Priceless.

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Let me see if I can find a god that you would NOT agree was "something". Baal perhaps? Some people worship trees? Some people worship gain penises. Are you agreeing they agree on their god and yours? Vice Versa?

I think it materially matters that you would not think their idea of a god, is your idea of a god. That you both believe in gods, seems a rather thin point (if there is one) if theirs is a penis, and yours is a dude that died on a stick.
Sorry, what are we talking about here? Pantheism? Fertility cults? What? I don't see what your point or how it relates to what was written. I just see the use of cheap debating tactics.

As for the dude that died on a stick. Yes, he did just that.

No cheap debate tactics intended, sincerely.

Someone Said:

"They are all agreed on something - that God IS - shouldn't that be our starting point?"

I'm saying, I don't think that people actually believe that "God is" is universal. They may think that we all believe in gods, but the nature of those gods are SO different, so dynamic, that to say "God is" is almost absurd. One man's god on a stick is another mans Penis god. They hardly seem equivalent.

That they also HAVE that massive disparity of "gods" says something about the initial point.

My thought is, "Yeah, but there are SO many gods that almost no on wants!"

That a penis god exists is NOT a good commentary on gods. It's actually a pretty big downer.

[ 16. July 2012, 22:24: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[QUOTE]

I can't prove a negative. But then I don't make life decisions on the assumption that something IS there that has no evidence whatsoever. Or worse, something that even the believers can't agree on, AT ALL. LOL

There is plenty of evidence for God MadGeo The reality of God is not something "believers can't agree on" but something that is experienced.

There is a way, in and by which, God is proved to exist. And much more than this, for in and by this way, the promise of God is fulfilled with all who enter into and follow this way.

WRT "death" - the physical body is not life in its entirety.

What do you think the soul of man is?

Can you conceive of the reality of ongoing life outside the physical body?

It seems you believe - if there is no ongoing life, there can be no God.

[Frown]

I begin to sense a bit of antagonism from unreformed and just wanted to add - it takes courage to question doctines and teachings (often set hard as stone) and it is good to let the extraneous fall off. But it seems you have turned to unbelief, rather that being left with something you can trust to begin with again.

My thought FWIW is never believe a lie. If it doesn't make sense, don't pretend.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
BTW, where did you study your theology? First Fundy Bible College?

Wow. I see how far you've come with that:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
As a Catholic I'm allowed to believe (and even told to) that all religions, especially but not only pre-Christian ones, have a spark of the divine in them.

You may want to check for your ecumenism. It seems to have fallen OFF. Not that I give a crap. I think all Christianity is nuts in some way. I even throw your tribe in the bath, although my good friend the Catholic priest sure represents his religion better than yours.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Good to know you're still alive and kicking, Mad Geo. Kicking, kicking ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Rosina:

There is no "evidence" for gods. There is belief, yes. Evidence, no. It says so right in the Book:

"Blessed are those that have not seen, and still believe", right? That was the Big Guys words, right?

I think the "soul" is a biological computer. Simple as that. Evolved from other bio-computers. The "Soul" is an idea with no evidence as well. One thing I admire about the Catholics religion is that they clearly draw lines that science answers things about the natural world, but point out science can't answer things about the soul. I admire their ability to compartmentalize like that. Genius really.

Of course, I think its rubbish. It's like they said Science answers things about nature, but not about astrology. Or, "Science answers things about nature, but not ghosts or faeries" Of COURSE science won't answer things about the soul. There's no evidence of the soul to answer.

I think this is our one pass. Just like any other animal. It is a trying idea at first, but one I've gotten past. Kinda like the idea of hell.

It makes me appreciate this life more fully. Makes me think about what I want to consider important. Hell clearly does that for other people.

When I was a Christian, I worried about being good enough. I'm a reasonably good person, and I always sweated it, despite "Righteousness by faith" etc. The subtext was "Stay good, or god'll throw you in the pit" Not very pleasant.

I'm just being honest. If someone wants to mock it, well, knock themselves out. They are accountable for their inhumanity, me for mine.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Very alive Sir P. Very alive. Good to see y'all. [Biased]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I suspected as much when I read HughWillRidmee's non answer to the question. The thread entitled "Can Atheism develop an epistemology to live by?" spun off into something else entirely. This one seems to be disappearing down the same rabbit trail. If we started a third thread on atheism would something similar happen?

It would be nice to see people like HughWillRidmee, The Great Gumby, Justinian, Mad Geo and Crœsos answered the bloody question rather then tell us why they don't believe in God. If the thread was entitled "Why I don't believe in God" then their responses would be relevant. But it's not called that.

So what makes atheists doubt their atheism? I've encountered quite a bit of thought within Christianity on doubt (for example, http://www.rzim.eu/doubt-training-day-oxford-audio). Is there such a response found within atheism? Or are atheists so rational that they don't doubt?

Since input was requested there were, for me, only two responses available.

1 – ignore it and risk the primary-school-playground-honed suggestion that the question was “uncomfortable or unthinkable” or

2 – respond by explaining why a reply to the question as posed is not possible. – to that end - for me, the question does not make sense. I don’t think my atheism counts as a conviction, it’s just the inevitable result of the way I look at life, the universe and everything etc....

To clarify – I don’t know what would make me doubt my atheism – but it would, as a bare minimum, have to involve some irrefutable, personal and otherwise inexplicable evidence that a god or gods existed. No such event has occurred and I don’t expect that it will.

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:....... it seem to me that at least some of the Christians here think that doubt is a reasonable position for anyone to take given the correct circumstances. After all, you only doubt that which you already believe. And this is why there is an assumption that doubt applies to atheists as well.

so because some Christians think that doubt is a reasonable position (in whatever constitutes “ the correct circumstances)”

a) It is,
b) Atheists are assumed to doubt and
c) Some who profess Christianity are entitled to throw their toys out of the pram because the atheists aren’t playing by the christian's rules.

You provide your own answer “you only doubt that which you already believe” . Atheism is an absence of belief – therefore, by your own argument, we are unable to doubt our atheism and your assumption is proven invalid.

Whilst on the subject of allegations of not answering questions – have I missed your replies Unreformed?
In response to your Hugh, even if you don't buy into Christianity, why not deism? You can logically get to deism without relying on special revelation or prophets or anything else. If Christianity was proved to be 100% wrong tomorrow it's probably what I'd adopt

I queried

1 - How do you think that I could logically get to deism?

2 - How do you envisage your Christianity might be proven 100% wrong?

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
BTW, where did you study your theology? First Fundy Bible College?
Wow. I see how far you've come with that:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
As a Catholic I'm allowed to believe (and even told to) that all religions, especially but not only pre-Christian ones, have a spark of the divine in them.

You may want to check for your ecumenism. It seems to have fallen OFF. Not that I give a crap. I think all Christianity is nuts in some way. I even throw your tribe in the bath, although my good friend the Catholic priest sure represents his religion better than yours.

You can share in what is true while still pointing out what is false. American-style protestant fundamentalism has a lot wrong with it, not the least of which is habituating people to think in a wooden, literal, parochial, black-and-white manner, which its ex-adherents find very difficult to drop even when they don't believe anymore.

Oh, and you still haven't even gotten close to the nature of God. I don't care about the Bible or the resurrection at this point, MadGeo, it won't do any good to talk about that when we're not even agreeing on first principles. Those need to be established before we go any further.

When it comes to other religions, it isn't true/false. It's varying degrees of truth. No religion is completely wrong. Yes, even Scientology.

Let's try again. What is God?

[ 16. July 2012, 23:33: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't actually assume that atheists have doubts, nor do I think they ought to, but I've been surprised at how little this is talked about. I think doubt is talked a lot about by theists, and that includes Christians. Indeed, you hear the idea that doubt is essential or not to doubt is immature, and so on.

So why are atheists' doubts aired so little? Perhaps most of them just don't have them. It is striking though how questions like this often seem to get inverted - let's talk about why believing in God is dumb - ah, that's better.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
1 - How do you think that I could logically get to deism?

Start here.

quote:
2 - How do you envisage your Christianity might be proven 100% wrong?

One-hundred percent wrong? Not trying to be a smartass here, but a full bone box with "Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary" written on it in Hebrew.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Undeformed

Yeah, I address your point in language you understand, and you move the goalpost to suit YOUR religion. So typical. You can't even be consistent with ecumenicism, why am I not surprised?

Even I, a staunch raving atheist that actually accommodates some religions, can see that Scientology was created out of the netherparts of a science fiction writer, likely as a brilliant tax dodge, and even makes Southern Baptists look like Truth by any comparison. They are, in fact, completely wrong. Much of their religion CAN be invalidated (or at least what I know of it) as compared to Catholicism (for example). I seriously think that anyone that knows the history of Scientology and believes it, is a certified idiot. I won't necessarily say that about other religions.

If you think Scientology ins't "completely wrong" then YOU are wrong. End of debate. You've stretched your veracity till it broke.

Anyway, do carry on without me. I'm interested more in what the others have to say anyway.

Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :

There is nothing that makes me doubt my atheism. I simply cannot believe in any religion (or other form of belief). It's not particularly fun being an atheist but for me it's not a matter of choice. I was brought up surrounded by Christianity and stopped believing unprompted by anyone or any circumstances as a young child. Since then, despite a lifelong interest in Christianity, there has never been anything I've seen, heard, read or experienced that has led me to doubt my lack of belief.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Even I, a staunch raving atheist that actually accommodates some religions, can see that Scientology was created out of the netherparts of a science fiction writer, likely as a brilliant tax dodge, and even makes Southern Baptists look like Truth by any comparison.

I completely agree with this.

I still think they've got one thing right. It probably by mistake, but they did. Just one.

Can you guess what that is?

Even they say humans are fallen, and in need of some kind of healing. The Word in seed form managed to find its way even into an obviously fraudulent religion. Probably ass-backwards, but it did.

[ 16. July 2012, 23:54: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

Interesting, Amika. I have a friend that had a similar experience to yours. He's more rabid than I.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
There is nothing that makes me doubt my atheism. I simply cannot believe in any religion (or other form of belief). It's not particularly fun being an atheist but for me it's not a matter of choice. I was brought up surrounded by Christianity and stopped believing unprompted by anyone or any circumstances as a young child. Since then, despite a lifelong interest in Christianity, there has never been anything I've seen, heard, read or experienced that has led me to doubt my lack of belief.

Maybe then, you are typical. I remember when the Dawkins forum did a poll several years ago, and they had a scale from 0-7, where 7 indicated 'absolutely no doubts about my atheism', and about 25% of atheists who responded put a 7, which seemed rather surprising at the time. But I think a lot put 6.9, as a kind of logical possibility that there could be God. So I suppose this is rather a nominal doubt!

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
If the Creator didn't want there to be a Hell, God wouldn't have created one. That God then gets to pretend he's being merciful by offering some people a way out of hellis the logic of the abuser "You shouldn't have made me hit you."

Ultimately only one person created Hell - and that is God. Only one person condemns people to Hell and that is God.
Crap.

God didn't create hell. The God of everlasting love is hell. He is hell to those who have freely and persistently chosen to hate him. He does not hate them. In fact, the more he loves them, the more they are tormented. That is why it says that "our God IS a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29).

You stated on another thread:

quote:
The God of the NT is far more distant, condemning people to be thrown into a lake of fire en masse without accepting arguments.
Who said that he does not accept arguments? Let's suppose a particular person comes before God after dying, and he presents all his arguments in his defence. Let's suppose God accepts all his arguments: "You've put a good case. I respect that. I do not condemn you. Welcome into my presence of everlasting love".

So the bloke is eternally exposed to the wonderful and glorious love of God. God has done nothing evil to him at all. But there's a problem. This person hates the love of God. Behind all his arguments there is an evil heart that is full of arrogance and conceit. He looks down on others. He despises the weak. He has contempt for anyone who doesn't see his point of view. What do you think his experience of the eternal love of God will be? Bliss or hell?

I suggest the latter.

Why does it say in Revelation 14:10 that the wicked are tormented "in the presence of the Lamb", which is a clear reference to Jesus Christ crucified (see Revelation 5:6)? The symbol of the lamb is significant. A lamb is the most docile of creatures, and what could be more "harmless" than a slaughtered lamb? The God who presides over the experience of those who are wilfully evil is the God who is the ultimate victim. This the very opposite of a sadistic torturer.

This biblical evidence proves that your analysis of hell is a straw man.

So carry on with your "dirty secret" conspiracy theory. AFAIAC it's BS.

That may be an effective stick to poke at someone who, out of anger for something s/he imagines god to have done, professes not to believe in him, as if as an impotent act of vengeance. But it is also an entirely subjective response from someone who does imagine him to exist, and so also imagines that this 'hating the love of god' taunt has a basis in reality. However, the topic under discussion is atheists, not anti-theists. An atheist does not hate the love of god, any more than s/he hates the smell of unicorn poop.

[ 17. July 2012, 00:51: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
I still think they've got one thing right. It probably by mistake, but they did. Just one.

Can you guess what that is?

Even they say humans are fallen, and in need of some kind of healing. The Word in seed form managed to find its way even into an obviously fraudulent religion. Probably ass-backwards, but it did.
No sir - one of the first rules of selling is that there has to be a need before it can be fulfilled, another is that, where no need exists, invent one, convince the target of the validity of that need and then sell the solution you already have.
Elron simply cottoned on to the despair/self-loathing/feelings of inadequacy that some people sometimes have, informed them of their (fulfillable) need by "auditing" them, reinforced the need by simple "tech" and got them hooked. I've seen similarly duped people wallowing in their (imagined) abject uselessness and "jumping for jesus" in a CofE church service.
Just because you can convince some people that they are "fallen" does not mean they are, or that they need any healing other than support to (re)discover their human worth.

How do you envisage your Christianity might be proven 100% wrong?

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
One-hundred percent wrong? Not trying to be a smartass here, but a full bone box with "Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary" written on it in Hebrew.
I fully accept that you’re not being a smartass(sic) - but how would you know that the bones were those of your religion’s lynch-pin? You would have no more reliable grounds for terminating your belief than you currently have for continuing it

How do you think that I could logically get to deism?

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Start here.
Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.
Wrong – no child is born believing in a deity – atheism is the natural state until disturbed by teaching/culture/threats etc.
Objection 2. .... Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident
Rubbish – I understand the words “Narnia” and “warp-drive” but neither “Narnia” nor “warp-drive” exists.

I could go on but since it's late and I notice that the arguments start to involve the bible as a valid source I can’t see much point.

If you think any point needs my attention let me know and I'll get back to you

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
You, as an atheist, have to believe that 98%+ people who ever lived are all superstitious deluded morons ...

Atheists don't actually have a Pope-equivalent telling them what they may and may not believe, whatever satirical snortings may be currently flying around about Richard Dawkins. Atheists choose to not imagine that existence is the creation and/or domain of a supernatural deity. No opinions on what others imagine, nor the effect of that on their intellect, is stipulated in the definition of atheist.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

I apologize HughWillRideMe, you're not reading Aquinas correctly but it's my fault for not telling you how to. It's a very different style of argumentation than what we're used to. Here's a good instruction manual.

The point I was making about the bone box (a central part of 1st Century Jewish burial, btw) is that the resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Disprove, and it collapses. In which case I'd become an ethical deist, perhaps with Jewish tendencies.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
You, as an atheist, have to believe that 98%+ people who ever lived are all superstitious deluded morons ...
Atheists don't actually have a Pope-equivalent telling them what they may and may not believe, whatever satirical snortings may be currently flying around about Richard Dawkins. Atheists choose to not imagine that existence is the creation and/or domain of a supernatural deity. No opinions on what others imagine, nor the effect of that on their intellect, is stipulated in the definition of atheist.

You're absolutely right, Kanchuko. I should have said anti-theist, or Internet Atheist (not the same thing as an atheist on the internet, e.g. HughWillRideMe doesn't seem to be an Internet Atheist). The kind that holds active, seething contempt for religions rather than just not believing in them, or asking honest questions about them.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Re the OP,
we might fruitfully ask if atheists believe in things the same way the religious believe in things. I think there is significant room to doubt that the belief in religious tenets can be equated with the disbelief that atheists have in them, and, further that the things atheists believe in (usually some scientifical type of formulation) are believed in the same way religious believers believe in their ideas.

Religious belief seems often based on a personal experience of something, convincing argument, appeal to cultural traditions and continuity, and some sort of emotion. Non-belief seems based on asking religion to submit to scientific standards of proof, and won't accept non-scientific proofs, full stop. Atheists may interpret some of the same experiences that religious believers do entirely differently, e.g., whereas I might take an aesthetic experience of music, prayer and liturgy as indicating a divine connection, the atheist may take it as merely a situational emotional experience generated by the constellation of thoughts and feelings, discounting other frames of experience.

I interact with many self-labelled atheists and religious people on a daily basis. My general take is that many atheists are 'pre-religious', and have never has proper opportunity to understand 'life, the universe and everything' from a different vantage point, and have decided that religion is to be ridiculed. I hear criticism of art and poetry almost on the same level from them.

It is commentary on the woeful state of education that people can graduate with high school diplomas, and university degrees, with little more than a Dawkins-like, 10 year old's understanding of religion -- well comparable to the illiteracy of fundamentalists and literalists in terms of any form of actual knowledge of what they criticise and defend.

[ 17. July 2012, 01:37: Message edited by: no_prophet ]

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :

I believe I'm an atheist which probably is a strange thing to say in itself. And I'm rather later into this discussion than I probably would want to be given the various directions that it has gone.

But : the q in the title. What makes me doubt my atheism? Without wishing to sound super creepy, the most unsettling thing for my status quo is other people. Wild acts of kindness or thoughtful wisdom from Christians make me think that perhaps I am missing something. There is something compelling in what they have, the philosphy, the mindset. And I want that. And, then I remember how it didn't work for me in my Christian times and in my currentness, I think - no. I can't go back. And whilst never say never, I would wager that I will never go back to any form of theism, I'm toooooo bruised.

But those moments exist.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

No I can't think of any time I've had doubts. It's not easy to expand on that answer without ....well talking about why I don't believe in God. Which brings complaints of being off on a tangent so I'll try to avoid doing that.

Maybe one of the reasons atheists aren't doubting is because we seem to have no problem saying I don't know. A thiest might have come to believe in God because otherwise where did the universe come from. Or they might start by believing in God then move on to the question of the universe and say ah of course God made it. Or they might reject evey other scientic theory and say God is the only explanation left. An atheist would wonder where the universe came from and start with I don't know. And if non of the current theory's seem to make sense they would go back to I don't know.

Hope there isn't too much of a tangent in my answer but just answering the OP with "no" seems a bit boring and uninformative.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Maybe one of the reasons atheists aren't doubting is because we seem to have no problem saying I don't know. A thiest might have come to believe in God because otherwise where did the universe come from. Or they might start by believing in God then move on to the question of the universe and say ah of course God made it. Or they might reject evey other scientic theory and say God is the only explanation left. An atheist would wonder where the universe came from and start with I don't know. And if non of the current theory's seem to make sense they would go back to I don't know.

Thanks George - I can't help thinking that if one comes to the conclusion that they don't know how the universe came into being, then might not that person also have to say that there is at least a possibility that God might have had something to do with it all?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Thanks George - I can't help thinking that if one comes to the conclusion that they don't know how the universe came into being, then might not that person also have to say that there is at least a possibility that God might have had something to do with it all?

Here's the answer. I can feel, see, touch and taste the small corner of the universe I live in. So it makes sense to ask where it came from. I have no reason to doubt it exists. When a person comes to me and says, "God exists", I don't have the same reason to believe in God as I do the universe.

Which just made me think of the following. Maybe the answer to why Atheists don't doubt is because in order to doubt you have to believe first.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Very alive Sir P. Very alive. Good to see y'all.

Ditto Mad Geo. [Big Grin]

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
I apologize HughWillRideMe, you're not reading Aquinas correctly but it's my fault for not telling you how to. It's a very different style of argumentation than what we're used to. Here's a good instruction manual.

The point I was making about the bone box (a central part of 1st Century Jewish burial, btw) is that the resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Disprove, and it collapses. In which case I'd become an ethical deist, perhaps with Jewish tendencies.

First Aquinas is agreeing that the saints in heaven perfectly see the afflictions of the damned and rejoice albeit indirectly unless you want to suggest that we have a bad English translation of his work. See
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5094.htm

quote:

A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such: and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.

And for Aquinas on eternal punishment. See
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5099.htm

Aquinas's views are those after "I answer that" and in the replies to objections.

As for doubting my atheism, sometimes. Note there is the doubt of desire for an Universalist God and the doubt of fact (the God of Gaps). For the latter the answer is 'I don't know, yet'. For the former, 'wishing for something doesn't make it true'.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The impression I have about some New Atheists, say the 4 Horsemen, is that they would see any doubt as a weakness. And since they seem to want to oppose religion fairly vigorously, if not aggressively, signs of weakness are to be avoided.

Maybe that is too melodramatic, but then I find some of the stuff written melodramatic in itself. Anyway, it is all good knock-about fun, I guess.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The impression I have about some New Atheists, say the 4 Horsemen, is that they would see any doubt as a weakness.

Doubt in what?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Doubt in the non-existence of God.

I suppose you could argue rather cynically, that admitting to doubt might be embarrassing, but saying you have no doubt, might also be embarrassing, as it sounds, well, fideist.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Doubt in the non-existence of God.

I suppose you could argue rather cynically, that admitting to doubt might be embarrassing, but saying you have no doubt, might also be embarrassing, as it sounds, well, fideist.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Doubt in the non-existence of God.

I suppose you could argue rather cynically, that admitting to doubt might be embarrassing, but saying you have no doubt, might also be embarrassing, as it sounds, well, fideist.

This for me is the thing that makes the question hard to answer. I can comprehend doubting a specific thing. When I'm asked if I doubt that I doubt it starts to sound like some sort of recursive puzzle. Is the next question going to be do you doubt that you doubt that you doubt?

Do you doubt that x exists sounds like a reasonable question.

Do you doubt that x doesn't exist.......I'm poorly educated and I've not studied logic but something about the way the second question is structured doesn't seem correct.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Oh, evil exists. It would take a near-perfect love to get through to someone like Adolf Hitler. Interesting tha tno one is capable of that in your theology...

Perfect love - i.e. the love of God - would get through to someone like Adolf Hitler, but only with his cooperation. That is why it is perfect love. In the absence of such consent, then you are absolutely right in saying that there is no one in my theology capable of getting through to him, because enforced love does not exist. Perhaps such a rapist concept of love does exist in your "we know what's best for you" philosophy?

As this is a tangent, and we've been warned against "off topic" comments, I'll leave it there for now, and possibly respond to your other points on another thread when I have the time.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Doubt in the non-existence of God.

I suppose you could argue rather cynically, that admitting to doubt might be embarrassing, but saying you have no doubt, might also be embarrassing, as it sounds, well, fideist.
This for me is the thing that makes the question hard to answer. I can comprehend doubting a specific thing. When I'm asked if I doubt that I doubt it starts to sound like some sort of recursive puzzle. Is the next question going to be do you doubt that you doubt that you doubt?

Do you doubt that x exists sounds like a reasonable question.

Do you doubt that x doesn't exist.......I'm poorly educated and I've not studied logic but something about the way the second question is structured doesn't seem correct.

I think that's right. I would say that doubt is just not relevant to an absence of belief in something. Thus, the question 'do atheists have doubts?' is perhaps just incoherent, under this reading.

Of course, if you construe atheism as a positive affirmation, thus, 'I hereby affirm that there is no God, and I know this with absolute certainty', then doubt is relevant.

Interesting point about doubt about doubt - who said I doubt, but I doubt my doubt? Can't remember.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I would say that atheists (mostly) do believe in something - it is the philosophy of scientism. That is to say that they believe that science is the only reliable and worthwhile form of knowledge, and any other form (philosophical or theological) is inferior and can only be considered in the light of science.

This is where the "god of the gaps" idea comes from - that God is only relevant for the few small gaps in our understanding of the cosmos, which will eventually be replaced by new scientific discovery anyway.

This is not my belief of course - to me they are not small gaps but gigantic chasms which science cannot begin or hope to fill.

Anyway, I know others will beg to differ, but maybe the real question should be whether atheists ever doubt this philosophy of scientism. I would say it is a belief which some put their absolute trust in, but is it so inconceivable that a few might occasionally think outside the box and wonder whether this belief/philosophy really is all it's cracked up to be?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Are there people who actually adhere to scientism?

That strikes me as odd, as it is obviously self-defeating. It is not a scientific claim, therefore, is disbarred.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

The trouble here, and why this thread was inevitably derailed, is that there are ultimately two questions that are, I believe, being confused by the Christian side of the argument.

Do I think that I might be wrong in my own conclusions? Yes. Regularly.

Do I think that I might be wrong in my own conclusions and that the right answer is the One God of the Bible, the God whose only Son incarnated and then was sacrificed on the cross?Hell no. And thank goodness.

And I was trying to answer both questions. If you are wrong about the existance of God, that may lead directly to atheism. But if I am wrong about the existance of the divine, I then need to work out what divine is out there. Christianity is only one possible step if Atheism is wrong. And IMO it's one of the least likely options (and I am very glad of that). I think the way I'd go if I wasn't an atheist is for some form of universalism or panentheism.

For the record the last and indeed only time I considered seriously converting to Christianity I was clinically depressed.

And @Mark Betts, the problem there comes down to the reliability of knowledge. We know there are vast limits on even what can be provable on pure logic that should be in the realm of logic (see Godel's proof for details). And there's plenty that's valuable that can't be proved by science. I believe @SusanDoris is an actual subscriber to scientism, but for myself I'd be happy to see something better. After all, science can only actually say what's false rather than what's true.

Also @Net Spinster, thanks for digging up the passages in the Summa Theologica. Game, set, match I think.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Do I think that I might be wrong in my own conclusions and that the right answer is the One God of the Bible, the God whose only Son incarnated and then was sacrificed on the cross?Hell no. And thank goodness.

I personally deliberately avoid such black and white alternatives. It may be assumed by atheists that this is what we are asking, but I'm only asking whether they might ever think outside the box of their mindset and consider something bigger than what science (or scientism) has to offer.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I would say that atheists (mostly) do believe in something - it is the philosophy of scientism.

For me it would be believing in things when I can see evidence for them. Is that the same as scientism?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't believe in the existence of scientism. (Naturally enough, occasionally, I have doubts about that.) For one thing, it is obviously self-defeating.

I also find it hard to believe that there are atheists who don't have just normal folk-type ideas, such as, this chocolate is fucking ace, or the X-factor is fab, or hell, my panties are very bunched up today, etc. etc.

[ 17. July 2012, 12:44: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
But : the q in the title. What makes me doubt my atheism? Without wishing to sound super creepy, the most unsettling thing for my status quo is other people. Wild acts of kindness or thoughtful wisdom from Christians make me think that perhaps I am missing something. There is something compelling in what they have, the philosphy, the mindset. And I want that. And, then I remember how it didn't work for me in my Christian times and in my currentness, I think - no. I can't go back. And whilst never say never, I would wager that I will never go back to any form of theism, I'm toooooo bruised.

But those moments exist.

I have noticed that there is a particular type of atheist who is prone to denying that emotion had any significant impact in the journey to atheism. I suppose these people would self-identify as "rationalists" and Freethinkers and are often anti-theistic in nature.

I would think that if ever I became an atheist one thing that would trouble with respects to my world-view was the question of morality - specifically if concepts such as "good" and "bad" could exist in an absolute sense. (I have personally never heard an atheist who gave an adequate answer to this question.) Indeed, this is the very same question that was influential in my journey away from apathetic agnosticism and back towards Christianity.

Anyway, sorry you have been bruised, Beenster. Christians are often as good as the next (if not better) when it comes to damaging others. Not always though, thank Christ.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perfect love - i.e. the love of God - would get through to someone like Adolf Hitler, but only with his cooperation. That is why it is perfect love.

So when I have seen a child throw a temper tantrum, kicking and fighting, and a mother just hold that child gently until he calmed down and accepted the love despite the initial active opposition, it was flawed love that got through? Right. Gotcha. I'll take human love over your 'perfect' and inhuman love any time. (I'm not sure I shouldn't put the word love in quotation marks when referring to your love-that-tortures-with-fire-and-brimstone).

quote:
Perhaps such a rapist concept of love does exist in your "we know what's best for you" philosophy?

I don't always know what is best for people. That is because I am not omniscient.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
You, as an atheist, have to believe that 98%+ people who ever lived are all superstitious deluded morons ...
Atheists don't actually have a Pope-equivalent telling them what they may and may not believe, whatever satirical snortings may be currently flying around about Richard Dawkins. Atheists choose to not imagine that existence is the creation and/or domain of a supernatural deity. No opinions on what others imagine, nor the effect of that on their intellect, is stipulated in the definition of atheist.
You're absolutely right, Kanchuko. I should have said anti-theist, or Internet Atheist (not the same thing as an atheist on the internet, e.g. HughWillRideMe doesn't seem to be an Internet Atheist). The kind that holds active, seething contempt for religions rather than just not believing in them, or asking honest questions about them.

Subsections noted and (I think) understood. [Smile]

Whatever, the 'pure' definition of an atheist though, it is difficult for atheists in the kind of society that most of us here inhabit to completely dodge allegations of anti-theism — that we are (even if only subconsciously) reacting against a cultural norm, against a belief system with such a welterweight of history and erudite commentary that it is commonly held to be self-evident (italics: qv in this thread). I think it is this, as a remnant in the subconscious, that could most cause an atheist to waver.

My own approach to the OP may not be of much relevance to a collective atheist opinion, if there is such thing. As a Buddhist, I think of myself as an 'atheist-plus', and of the original historical Buddha as the Grandaddy of atheist philosophers. That is, he expounded a cogent set of suppositions about the nature of existence, which were not reliant on god belief. The Chinese philosopher Tien T'ai encapsulated these suppositions in his concept of ichinen sanzen* ('3,000 aspects to one moment of life') — a formula of life in a self-originating, self-contained and self perpetuating context. What stops me doubting my atheist position essentially comes down to my appreciation of ichinen sanzen. To my mind, it effectively plugs the gaps left by what might be called 'orthodox' materialism. The 'plugs' are foundations for investigation, rather than glib, dogmatic answers.

(* I don't know the provenance of this link so I don't necessarily agree with other content on the site: but the essay seems to be a good objective assessment of the major points of what I understand by ichinen sanzen.)

[ 17. July 2012, 12:54: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I would say that atheists (mostly) do believe in something - it is the philosophy of scientism.
For me it would be believing in things when I can see evidence for them. Is that the same as scientism?

Pretty much, yes. I think it's also called posivitism.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
what gives atheists the most cause for reflection about the strength of their convictions?

Seeing the good done by religion.

I’m a doubtful atheist. I doubt the truth of everything in which people believe- especially as this applies to myself. This is called scepticism, and it is the best basis for reaching an understanding of objective truth. Doubt is glorious!

I don’t know there is no god, so of course there is an element of doubt in my belief (that there is not). Atheists who claim no doubt in their belief are as self-deluded as any wishful-thinking theist. However, I come to this from the position that religion importantly does more net harm than good, and for that reason I feel we’re better off discarding it. I therefore choose to believe there’s no god, but I often see the good things done because of religious belief, and this, more than anything else, challenges my position and causes me to doubt the validity of my atheistic position (after all, if believing in a nonexistent god causes overall good then it is surely better to believe, since it matters not in any other sense).

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Pretty much, yes. I think it's also called posivitism.

Actually, No - you may not have seen any evidence, but you put your complete faith in a scientist who says he has proved it.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I ..... choose to believe there’s no god, but I often see the good things done because of religious belief, and this, more than anything else, challenges my position and causes me to doubt the validity of my atheistic position (after all, if believing in a nonexistent god causes overall good then it is surely better to believe, since it matters not in any other sense).

And previously...

quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
Wild acts of kindness or thoughtful wisdom from Christians make me think that perhaps I am missing something. There is something compelling in what they have, the philosphy, the mindset. And I want that...

I'd say that, as atheists, you own the decision whether to act altruistically. As indeed do theists. The difference, I think, is that theist belief structures produce carrots and sticks to push that decision in the positive direction. But there's absolutely no need to miss out on value-creating actions just because you don't have a 'higher purpose'. Just do them, enjoy them for their own sake, and experience the happiness, which is their innate benefit.

I've been along to several gatherings of Action for Happiness, the organisation behind the above link. People have shared many experiences which illustrate the veracity of its tenets. Not a single person so far has ever mentioned the G word.

[ 17. July 2012, 13:38: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I personally deliberately avoid such black and white alternatives. It may be assumed by atheists that this is what we are asking, but I'm only asking whether they might ever think outside the box of their mindset and consider something bigger than what science (or scientism) has to offer.

Can I just ask on what basis you presume to know what is an atheists' mindset, especially as you seem to be lumping us all together? What you seem to be saying is that ought to adopt your superior mindset instead.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Can I just ask on what basis you presume to know what is an atheists' mindset, especially as you seem to be lumping us all together? What you seem to be saying is that ought to adopt your superior mindset instead.

Maybe it would have been better to say "atheist worldview" as opposed to "theist world view". No-one said anything about superiority, although we can all be guilty of such a charge.

Anyway, granted, not all atheists think the same, but I would have thought the atheist and the theist worldviews could quite easily be distinguished and separated.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Can I just ask on what basis you presume to know what is an atheists' mindset, especially as you seem to be lumping us all together? What you seem to be saying is that ought to adopt your superior mindset instead.
Maybe it would have been better to say "atheist worldview" as opposed to "theist world view". No-one said anything about superiority, although we can all be guilty of such a charge.

Anyway, granted, not all atheists think the same, but I would have thought the atheist and the theist worldviews could quite easily be distinguished and separated.

There's only one thing that we can say atheists have in common.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
There's only one thing that we can say atheists have in common.

What's that? If it's the unbelief of any higher power than the human intellect, then that prettywell defines the atheist worldview... doesn't it?

[ 17. July 2012, 16:18: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

^ If it is, then here's one atheist that disagrees with it. There is no statement about the human intellect in the definition of 'atheism'. But I did say my opinion isn't necessarily normative, but this is a simple matter of etymology.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Only started to read this topic this afternoon, so I’ve some catching up to do! In one of the first few posts, I notice that the motivation for caring for someone with multiple problems ‘must have come from somewhere’. Yes, the altruistic behaviour of humans which has developed along with our evolution. I wonder why someone would choose to attribute it to some nonp—human agency? When it is clear that people of no religious
Faith, as well as those with, will behave like this.
Unsurprisingly, I am in agreement with most of HughWillRidmee’s post!

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Firstly - believing in a god or gods because one cannot think of an alternative is known as “belief in the god(s) of the gaps”. Human beings thought of thunder and lightning as a “gap” until we understood +ve and -ve electrical charge, we used the power of the sun as a “gap” until we understood radiation etc. etc.. Filling the gaps in knowledge with a god, any god, is a decision which involves choice. If you choose the christian god over (say) the hindu gods it matters not – you have your “gap” filled (but human knowledge - the basis for medicine etc. - has advanced not one jot).
I don’t think my atheism counts as a conviction, it’s just the inevitable result of the way I look at life, the universe and everything. I look at the world from a sceptical viewpoint. I neither need nor expect to have an answer for everything.

Agree, but I think my scepticism came more to the fore when I was teaching, finding out things to ensure that I was telling the children what was true and in coming into contact with people in different areas of my life who were already atheists. Before that, it had been part of the background of life.

quote:
I grew up in Christianity, smothered in Christianity and totally oblivious to the possibility of doubt.

Here my experience was different. I grew up in a CofE home with Sunday School etc but it was balanced by the fact that both my parents believed in God but had realised that the biblical stories were stories to teach moral behaviour, not to be taken as factual.

Since realising I was an atheist, I have not had occasion to reconsider. I hasten to add that this does not mean I dismiss arguments for beliefsince I never know when one might come up which has evidence to back it up!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Is it correct to speak of an atheist 'world-view'? That seems odd to me, since there are Buddhist atheists, who may believe in satori (enlightenment), there are Hindu atheists, Christian atheists, and so on.

Not having a belief in something is surely not a world-view, is it?

For example, atheism does not entail materialism. You could believe in Berkeleyan idealism, and be an atheist, although he wasn't.

Or you could be a neutral monist, as Russell was, and be an atheist.

Or you could believe everything is made up of happy little pixies, which are able to masquerade as quarks, and be an atheist. Etc, etc.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
There's only one thing that we can say atheists have in common.
What's that? If it's the unbelief of any higher power than the human intellect, then that prettywell defines the atheist worldview... doesn't it?

1: Unbelief isn't a positive trait.

2: There is absolutely nothing inherent in atheism that caps the power level at humanity. There can to an atheist be theoretically higher powers than humanity (and I know some who'd place the heart above reason). It's simply that there isn't a monotheistic God.

And there isn't one strand of atheism. You might as well talk about one strand of Christianity. (Regrettably I need to share a tent with the followers of Ayn Rand - and I'd rather line up with the Roman Catholic Church).

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
It would be nice to see people like HughWillRidmee, The Great Gumby, Justinian, Mad Geo and Crœsos answered the bloody question ..

And me!!As Justinian said, the only thing which would make me doubt atheism is an actual miracle......but even then, I'd be doubting the miracle and want to find out its natural cause and in the end would opt for the 'we don't know yet' conclusion! [Big Grin]

But it's always so interesting to read these discussions, or perhaps exchanges of views would be more appropriate. I venture to suggest that one of the reasons Christians may doubt their beliefs is because they can never produce that one vital piece of evidence that will settle the matter.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Rosina:

There is no "evidence" for gods. There is belief, yes. Evidence, no. It says so right in the Book:

"Blessed are those that have not seen, and still believe", right? That was the Big Guys words, right?

Jesus in "the Book" is recorded as saying "God is spirit"

There is loads of evidence for the existence of God. As God is Spirit, so also His Word. As His World is of Spirit, so also His Word which describes these matters.

The physical body of man is designed to die and rot away. It is the spirit which lives.

There are many testimonies which are evidence of the truth of the matter. Learn the difference between evidence and proof.

There is a way to prove the existence and reality of God. However, it is a way designed by God, which must be followed in order to prove the matter. Belief and faith are two quite different things.

Faith is confidence and trust substantiated
by the revealed knowledge of the truth of a matter.

Faith is a result of the evidence.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
2: There is absolutely nothing inherent in atheism that caps the power level at humanity. There can to an atheist be theoretically higher powers than humanity (and I know some who'd place the heart above reason). It's simply that there isn't a monotheistic God.

I never said that the alternative to athiesm had to be belief in a monotheistic God. I believe in a Trinitarian God (ie monotheistic), but I don't infer that such a belief is necessary for a theistic worldview.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I would say that atheists (mostly) do believe in something - it is the philosophy of scientism.
For me it would be believing in things when I can see evidence for them. Is that the same as scientism?

I'll have to check the definition. It's certainly not science. Peter Higgs postulated the existence of now famous partcile in 1964. There was no empirical evidence for it until now. But I'm not going to get hung up on a definition. Scientology ain't got much to do with science...

Nice to have you back on the thread by the way.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I'll have to check the definition. It's certainly not science. Peter Higgs postulated the existence of now famous partcile in 1964. There was no empirical evidence for it until now. But I'm not going to get hung up on a definition. Scientology ain't got much to do with science...

Nice to have you back on the thread by the way.

Yep - you need to. Science, scientism and scientology are three very different things. btw, no-one's proved to me that the Higgs Boson "god partical" exists, but I guess they had to say something to justify the £2 000 000 000 Large Hadron Collider in a continent otherwise crippled by austerity measures.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I'll have to check the definition. It's certainly not science. Peter Higgs postulated the existence of now famous partcile in 1964. There was no empirical evidence for it until now. But I'm not going to get hung up on a definition. Scientology ain't got much to do with science...

Nice to have you back on the thread by the way.
Yep - you need to. Science, scientism and scientology are three very different things. btw, no-one's proved to me that the Higgs Boson "god partical" exists, but I guess they had to say something to justify the £2 000 000 000 Large Hadron Collider in a continent otherwise crippled by austerity measures.

I understand it was called the 'God particle' because it underpinned everything in the universe and was elusive
[Biased]

. It simply confirms the standard model of particle physics which has been held on theoretical grounds for decades. But back to the o/p.....

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
I'll have to check the definition. It's certainly not science. Peter Higgs postulated the existence of now famous partcile in 1964. There was no empirical evidence for it until now. But I'm not going to get hung up on a definition. Scientology ain't got much to do with science...

Nice to have you back on the thread by the way.
Yep - you need to. Science, scientism and scientology are three very different things. btw, no-one's proved to me that the Higgs Boson "god partical" exists, but I guess they had to say something to justify the £2 000 000 000 Large Hadron Collider in a continent otherwise crippled by austerity measures.

And they wont prove it to you because science isn't in the business of providing proof - at least in the absolute sense.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
One of the issues for me was the way science couldn't really explain one's most important experiences in a personally meaningful way. Love and grief being the most obvious examples.

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
It was the improbability of existance that got me in the end.

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Lastly there was just something there.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just had a series of experiences of something which could not not exist...and then looked around for a spiritual practice, which could 'hold' them, and Christianity seemed to work pretty well.
These statements are moving! Thank you.

To which I would add...

Just simply that there is life after death. That is all the doubt I need.

Jengie John

--------------------

Amika

There is nothing that makes me doubt my atheism. I simply cannot believe in any religion (or other form of belief). It's not particularly fun being an atheist but for me it's not a matter of choice. I was brought up surrounded by Christianity and stopped believing unprompted by anyone or any circumstances as a young child. Since then, despite a lifelong interest in Christianity, there has never been anything I've seen, heard, read or experienced that has led me to doubt my lack of belief.

------------
Beenster

I believe I'm an atheist which probably is a strange thing to say in itself. ..

What makes me doubt my atheism? Without wishing to sound super creepy, the most unsettling thing for my status quo is other people. Wild acts of kindness or thoughtful wisdom from Christians make me think that perhaps I am missing something. There is something compelling in what they have, the philosphy, the mindset. And I want that. And, then I remember how it didn't work for me in my Christian times and in my currentness, I think - no. I can't go back. And whilst never say never, I would wager that I will never go back to any form of theism, I'm toooooo bruised.

But those moments exist.

---------
George Spigot

No I can't think of any time I've had doubts.

----------
Yorick

I’m a doubtful atheist. I doubt the truth of everything in which people believe- especially as this applies to myself. This is called scepticism, and it is the best basis for reaching an understanding of objective truth. Doubt is glorious!
---------

Thanks for entering into the spirit of o/p. Any more?

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:

Faith is a result of the evidence.

Trust me Rosina. There's no evidence. If there was I'd likely still be a Christian.

There's stories. There's anecdotes. There's wishing. There's mythology. There's a vague sense of unease like indegestion. But that's not evidence.

The "evidence" that one might invoke is that same "evidence" that one would invoke for Baal, Shiva, and Ghosts. I don't think you want to use that evidence. I know I wouldn't if I were you.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Mad Geo:

quote:
There's stories. There's anecdotes. There's wishing. There's mythology.

Yup. Not evidence, but it's enough to let it work for me. I can believe six impossible things before breakfast with enough energy left for a few more later in the day.

Hi, Mad Geo! Glad to see you around. [Smile]

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:

Faith is a result of the evidence.
Trust me Rosina. There's no evidence. If there was I'd likely still be a Christian.

There's stories. There's anecdotes. There's wishing. There's mythology. There's a vague sense of unease like indegestion. But that's not evidence.

The "evidence" that one might invoke is that same "evidence" that one would invoke for Baal, Shiva, and Ghosts. I don't think you want to use that evidence. I know I wouldn't if I were you.

Why should we trust you? You've provided no evidence that we should.

Anyway, I would like you to do us the honour of justifying your statement because you are essentially saying that every single person that has believed, currently believes and will believe in God does do so on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. That is a stunning claim.

As I see it, there is evidence for God. In the context of Christianity this could bee seen as things like historical evidence, personal experience, philosophical arguments and scientific discoveries to name categories that spring to mind. There is also evidence against God. For example, the problem of evil is particularly strong evidence against an all powerful and all good God. The question is whether any of this evidence is reliable or not.

Curious how this thread is again descending into an attempt to rout Christianity. Why is this, I wonder?

[ 17. July 2012, 22:26: Message edited by: Squibs ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

I'm, perhaps surprisingly, with the theists here. Anecdotal evidence is a form of evidence. This doesn't mean that it's a very good form of evidence and the plural of anecdote is not data. But it is evidence.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:

Faith is a result of the evidence.
Trust me Rosina. There's no evidence. If there was I'd likely still be a Christian.

There's stories. There's anecdotes. There's wishing. There's mythology. There's a vague sense of unease like indegestion. But that's not evidence.

There is also love joy and peace. There is the joy of giving. Something happens deep inside you when you give for the needs of another.

It's called a reward and is the consequence or result of following the first law of God, the principle of love. It is a very healing process.

WRT 'evidence' the authors of scriptures declared all they experienced. When a person does what they did, and experiences what they spoke of (that is written about) that person has proved their word as truth thereby proving the reality and existence of God.

Love, is just the beginning. It is the foundation of good will. On this comes truth, always speaking in truth. Honesty creates a clear conscience. It removes stress and conflict.

God has sent forth, love, peace, and good will toward mankind. He has offered to teach man how to live a life of peace, love and joy.

One man responded to this offer of God. He made God his Teacher and 'Father' It has been written
that through tears and loud cryings, he learned obedience to all he was taught, and was saved from the life man teaches and structures.

And He tried to share all He was taught with others so they too could experience "abundant Life".

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
originally posted by Yorick
after all, if believing in a nonexistent god causes overall good then it is surely better to believe, since it matters not in any other sense
I disagree – are you suggesting that doctors should recommend ineffective treatments because they may trigger a placebo effect? As I understand it medical consensus is that lying to patients is a) wrong and b) once discovered, is likely to damage patients’ trust and therefore risk avoidable harm should subsequent life-threatening events occur.

quote:
originally posted by Mark Betts
Actually, No - you may not have seen any evidence, but you put your complete faith in a scientist who says he has proved it.

No, it’s seems as though you are assuming science is just religion without a divinity.

I trust the scientific method - hypotheses, gathering of evidence, analysis of the evidence, drawing a conclusion, publishing in a peer reviewed journal, replication by others. Of course it is not impossible to get things wrong via the scientific method, but it’s a lot more trustworthy than someone who says something you like the sound of, even though their claims (if any) of supporting evidence amount to hearsay, imagination, arguments from authority, tradition etc.

quote:
originally posted by Mark Betts
It may be assumed by atheists that this is what we are asking, but I'm only asking whether they might ever think outside the box of their mindset and consider something bigger than what science (or scientism) has to offer.

Bigger is a bit of a vague word isn’t it? Do you mean larger, better, more complex, truer, less factual, more erudite, more theoretically developed..? Presumably, as far as you’re concerned, the something that is bigger (whatever/however) than science is related to your belief in a god or gods. I guess that you are passionate about your belief but phrasing your comments so that they prejudge an outcome is not conducive to sensible debate. You might feel aggrieved if an atheist were to ask if theists are so incapable of rising above the mediocrity of servility to a rather ridiculous concept of divinity as to be unable to consider that the world is a better place because the benefits of science have largely replaced the religion driven-failures that preceded them. (For example; antibiotics tend to be more effective against certain diseases than painting a cross on the front door of a house).

Too much testosterone and too little respect for other people is a recipe for war-war rather than jaw-jaw. Whatever I might think of your ideas I have no way of knowing how you came by them. As someone who was brought up in one of christianity’s many subsets I know that the pressure to conform, which can apply to other forms of belief (and non-belief) is immensely powerful. Some people have the ability to resist/overthrow such pressure, others can’t. I don’t think that a person who can’t is any less a human being and therefore should be treated with appropriate respect. (It’s a bit like hate-the-sin; love-the-sinner).

I reserve the right, of course, to reconsider the appropriate level of respect if some-one persists in behaving like an asshole. And I, of course, never ever behave like an asshole.

quote:
originally posted by no_prophet
It is commentary on the woeful state of education that people can graduate with high school diplomas, and university degrees, with little more than a Dawkins-like, 10 year old's understanding of religion -- well comparable to the illiteracy of fundamentalists and literalists in terms of any form of actual knowledge of what they criticise and defend.

This crops up repeatedly in many different forums and from many different sources.

I suspect that anyone who thinks about it will come to the conclusion that it’s really rather silly.

One could also regard it as a woeful commentary on religion that its proponents disagree about pretty much everything except that belief in a god or god(s) is somehow a good thing. If someone much cleverer than me spent seventy years studying religion – let’s make it easier – just versions and varieties, and sub-versions and sub-varieties (and major and minor sub/sub varieties – you get the drift) of Christianity they would never know it all – but someone who has studied and researched long and hard to become an acknowledged (by his peers) expert in his field is expected to know all about your (and everyone else’s) particular take on each and every esoteric convolution which can be forced under the umbrella of religion before his take on the basis of all those religious disputations (the existence of a god or gods) is valid.

quote:
originally posted by Rosina
Faith is a result of the evidence.

No it isn’t – do you have a dictionary? if not use this link

faith
• 1 - complete trust or confidence in someone or something
• 2 - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof: (my added emphasis )

quote:
originally posted by Squibs
Anyway, I would like you to do us the honour of justifying your statement because you are essentially saying that every single person that has believed, currently believes and will believe in God does do so on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. That is a stunning claim.

As I see it, there is evidence for God. In the context of Christianity this could bee seen as things like historical evidence, personal experience, philosophical arguments and scientific discoveries to name categories that spring to mind. There is also evidence against God. For example, the problem of evil is particularly strong evidence against an all powerful and all good God. The question is whether any of this evidence is reliable or not.

This is about what constitutes an acceptable level of evidence and, for me, your concept of the evidence for god (I don't think that there are any scientific discoveries that count as evidence for god) is like the concept of evidence that homeopaths use to justify their sales patter. “We can’t be expected to provide scientific proof because science doesn’t understand how our non/extra-scientific things work”.

We have built up a practice of law which includes safeguards when it comes to the admissibility of evidence. Applied properly it prevents the conviction of the accused when the evidence is not good enough. Hearsay is not good enough, Guessing is not good enough, Co-incidence is not good enough, Revelation is not good enough, Conviction is not good enough, Un-corroborated eye-witness statements are not good enough (and there are probably more – I’m not a lawyer).

Apply this test and religion, like homeopathy and faith-healing and dowsing etc. etc. fail. This leads to special pleading . If you allow special pleading you get the problem of having to allow it not only for Christians but also for Muslims, for $cientologists, for Wiccans, for Jedi and even for atheists (unless you can justify your personal use of special pleading by invoking further special pleading, and then invoke... you can see where this is going can’t you?)

Offline for a few days – don’t go away.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

As an atheist I've held off replying while I figured out why the OP question annoys me. It's not hypersensitivity to my shaky worldview or as I originally thought, annoyance at a trolling expedition.

I think that it's assuming one world view. I have contemplated deism and thought about Pascal's wager before rejecting it as immoral. However, for me, doubt (and faith) are not a constant companion.

To try to translate it, there have been thousands of gods people have and do believe in.
How many of these do you personally concernn yourself about your belief or non belief. As a Christian do you spend a lot of time wondering if you should be believing in Islam or the nearest river deity because you have gotten the wrong version of the message? I don't see this universal anxiety and I think you'd be annoyed if you were assumed to have it.
You may be engaged in believing or doubting in a one or two relgiions and happily ignore many other religions that don't impress you. That's fine. Yet you expect atheists to be engaged in doubting if not believing at least one religion. That's not a requirement for atheists. Some do, others don't but it's a broad church. [Smile]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I disagree – are you suggesting that doctors should recommend ineffective treatments because they may trigger a placebo effect? As I understand it medical consensus is that lying to patients is a) wrong and b) once discovered, is likely to damage patients’ trust and therefore risk avoidable harm should subsequent life-threatening events occur.

No. I’m not suggesting that doctors should recommend ineffective treatments because they may trigger a placebo effect. That sentence doesn’t even make sense.

I’m suggesting that what matters here is whether religion is an overall good regardless of the non-existence of God, since His non-existence cannot be known. To take medicinal analogy then, the only thing that matters is whether the patient feels better. It does not matter if the medicine is placebo since this cannot be known, so there’s no question of lying to the patient or trust being damaged, etc.

[BTW, do you think you could learn to do quotes in the usual way? I find your posts difficult to untangle and reply to. Thanks.]

[ 18. July 2012, 09:56: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As an atheist I've held off replying while I figured out why the OP question annoys me. It's not hypersensitivity to my shaky worldview or as I originally thought, annoyance at a trolling expedition.

I think that it's assuming one world view. I have contemplated deism and thought about Pascal's wager before rejecting it as immoral. However, for me, doubt (and faith) are not a constant companion.

My take is that it's very simple. An underlying premise is the value, ubiquity, and need for faith. And the corresponding issues with doubt. Basically it's a question asked in the assumption that everyone thinks the way Christians do.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I would think that if ever I became an atheist one thing that would trouble with respects to my world-view was the question of morality - specifically if concepts such as "good" and "bad" could exist in an absolute sense. (I have personally never heard an atheist who gave an adequate answer to this question.) Indeed, this is the very same question that was influential in my journey away from apathetic agnosticism and back towards Christianity.

Squibs, first you misrepresent me by calling me an atheist (I'm not, or at least not yet), then you claim that I didn't answer the question in the OP (I did, even though I'm not a performing seal and I suspect the OP conceals an agenda), now finally your stated reasons for hypothetically doubting atheism are identical to one I gave which you deemed inappropriate in some way. For someone who's lamented the direction the thread's taken, you're not doing much to convince me that you're interested in genuine discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I have noticed that there is a particular type of atheist who is prone to denying that emotion had any significant impact in the journey to atheism. I suppose these people would self-identify as "rationalists" and Freethinkers and are often anti-theistic in nature.

Well, that depends, doesn't it? My journey has been (and remains) very emotional, but not in the way you imply. Emotion is what makes it harder for me to cut the ties and walk away, not easier. I suspect if I was completely rational, I'd have gone long ago.

Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :

I've been thinking about my earlier post and would like to add to it a little.

I doubt quite a lot of things - whether this world is really what it seems to be, whether existence itself is what it seems to be, etc. For my own sanity I have made a conscious decision to assume that it is, but I toy with other ideas at times. One of the ideas I toy with is whether some 'superbeing' could exist. My answer to that is, of course, I don't know. But what I do know, as much as anyone can say they know anything, is that if there were such a superbeing then no religion yet described, imagined, or created by humans has yet made sense of it to my satisfaction. Hence I cannot believe in any religion or other form of belief currently practiced. I don't doubt my atheism in relation to what humans believe God to be.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Squibs, first you misrepresent me by calling me an atheist (I'm not, or at least not yet), then you claim that I didn't answer the question in the OP (I did, even though I'm not a performing seal and I suspect the OP conceals an agenda), now finally your stated reasons for hypothetically doubting atheism are identical to one I gave which you deemed inappropriate in some way. For someone who's lamented the direction the thread's taken, you're not doing much to convince me that you're interested in genuine discussion.

It certainly wasn't my intention to misrepresent you by calling you an atheist. I misunderstood your world-view, which I now see is “Free-thinking Non-Denominational Christian Agnostic ”. If I could I would edit out your name from my post. But as I can't. So “Sorry” will have to do. The reason I thought you were an atheist is because you say the type of things I would expect an atheist to say.

I don't know anything about concealed agendas. However, if you think there is one then perhaps you should tell us what it is, because on the face of it it seems to me that a perfectly reasonable question has been asked. Ramarius even went on to individually thank those people (atheist and theists) who directly answered the question.

As for preforming seals - if you think that the theists here are asking for a show the happy thing about internet forums is that you don't have to respond if you don't want to. If you are preforming (and I don't agree that anyone intended you to do such a thing) then it is by your own choice.

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Well, that depends, doesn't it? My journey has been (and remains) very emotional, but not in the way you imply. Emotion is what makes it harder for me to cut the ties and walk away, not easier. I suspect if I was completely rational, I'd have gone long ago.

Yes, it depends. That is why I qualified who I was talking by saying, “I have noticed that there is a particular type of atheist who is prone to denying that emotion had any significant impact in the journey to atheism”. If this doesn't apply to you then that is fine. But let's be clear that I never had you, The Great Gumby, in mind when I wrote what I did.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've been thinking about my earlier post and would like to add to it a little.

I doubt quite a lot of things - whether this world is really what it seems to be, whether existence itself is what it seems to be, etc. For my own sanity I have made a conscious decision to assume that it is, but I toy with other ideas at times. One of the ideas I toy with is whether some 'superbeing' could exist. My answer to that is, of course, I don't know. But what I do know, as much as anyone can say they know anything, is that if there were such a superbeing then no religion yet described, imagined, or created by humans has yet made sense of it to my satisfaction. Hence I cannot believe in any religion or other form of belief currently practiced. I don't doubt my atheism in relation to what humans believe God to be.

This is what I was getting at, when I asked Justinian whether he ever thought outside the box and considered whether there might be something bigger than anything science can discover.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Squibs, first you misrepresent me by calling me an atheist (I'm not, or at least not yet), then you claim that I didn't answer the question in the OP (I did, even though I'm not a performing seal and I suspect the OP conceals an agenda), now finally your stated reasons for hypothetically doubting atheism are identical to one I gave which you deemed inappropriate in some way. For someone who's lamented the direction the thread's taken, you're not doing much to convince me that you're interested in genuine discussion.
It certainly wasn't my intention to misrepresent you by calling you an atheist. I misunderstood your world-view, which I now see is “Free-thinking Non-Denominational Christian Agnostic ”. If I could I would edit out your name from my post. But as I can't. So “Sorry” will have to do. The reason I thought you were an atheist is because you say the type of things I would expect an atheist to say.

Well, the label doesn't bother me nearly as much as the rest. Labels are only so much use, and this one's probably a bit out of date, but I don't have anything better to put in its place. As for sounding like an atheist, I can promise that I wasn't munching on a baby as I typed, if that's what you mean. I'm far more irritated that you specifically called me out by name as not answering the question to your satisfaction (as if I or anyone else owes you anything - that's what I mean about performing seals), and then later went on to raise exactly the point I did in the first place. Did you even read what I wrote, or did it just look too "atheist" for you?

And yes, I suspect an agenda, because I've seen this so many times before that it's a well-worn routine. Ask an atheist if there's anything that would change their minds, or if they have any doubts or uncertainties. If they say yes, they're not really atheists, not really real, more like confused doubters who are just begging for a stream of predictable apologetics. If they say no, they're dogmatic, closed-minded, unscientific, following the "religion of atheism", and so on. It's tedious and embarrassing.

It may be that there was no such intention here, but I've seen it often enough to be very cautious. The fact that my answer was misrepresented so spectacularly should give you an idea of why that might be.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
...I would think that if ever I became an atheist one thing that would trouble with respects to my world-view was the question of morality - specifically if concepts such as "good" and "bad" could exist in an absolute sense. (I have personally never heard an atheist who gave an adequate answer to this question.)...

This particular atheist has never really understood the question. Why do you need to know the answer? What would the answer mean to you in real terms? Do you think it would enlighten you to a degree where you yourself could be absolutely good? How does religious belief persuade you that Absolute Good and Bad do exist as concepts — by which I presume you mean in some way divorced from the manifest actions and interactions of conscious beings, otherwise they are necessarily relative terms?

Ok. Major sidelining issue; I know.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I've been thinking about my earlier post and would like to add to it a little.

I doubt quite a lot of things - whether this world is really what it seems to be, whether existence itself is what it seems to be, etc. For my own sanity I have made a conscious decision to assume that it is, but I toy with other ideas at times. One of the ideas I toy with is whether some 'superbeing' could exist. My answer to that is, of course, I don't know. But what I do know, as much as anyone can say they know anything, is that if there were such a superbeing then no religion yet described, imagined, or created by humans has yet made sense of it to my satisfaction. Hence I cannot believe in any religion or other form of belief currently practiced. I don't doubt my atheism in relation to what humans believe God to be.
This is what I was getting at, when I asked Justinian whether he ever thought outside the box and considered whether there might be something bigger than anything science can discover.

I can't remember what I replied then. But science can establish parameters for anything that impacts the material world. Science isn't a means for creating knowledge - it's a means for sorting and testing ideas. Any proposed explanation that has a consistent impact on the physical world can have scientific techniques turned on it.

And for the record, a large but fundamentally simple God isn't outside the box. It was sitting right in the very centre of the box with concentric circles painted on it. Or at least it was. Currently that target has enough holes in it it can be used as a collander and has been put to one side.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Squibs, first you misrepresent me by calling me an atheist (I'm not, or at least not yet), then you claim that I didn't answer the question in the OP (I did, even though I'm not a performing seal and I suspect the OP conceals an agenda), now finally your stated reasons for hypothetically doubting atheism are identical to one I gave which you deemed inappropriate in some way. For someone who's lamented the direction the thread's taken, you're not doing much to convince me that you're interested in genuine discussion.
It certainly wasn't my intention to misrepresent you by calling you an atheist. I misunderstood your world-view, which I now see is “Free-thinking Non-Denominational Christian Agnostic ”. If I could I would edit out your name from my post. But as I can't. So “Sorry” will have to do. The reason I thought you were an atheist is because you say the type of things I would expect an atheist to say.
Well, the label doesn't bother me nearly as much as the rest. Labels are only so much use, and this one's probably a bit out of date, but I don't have anything better to put in its place. As for sounding like an atheist, I can promise that I wasn't munching on a baby as I typed, if that's what you mean. I'm far more irritated that you specifically called me out by name as not answering the question to your satisfaction (as if I or anyone else owes you anything - that's what I mean about performing seals), and then later went on to raise exactly the point I did in the first place. Did you even read what I wrote, or did it just look too "atheist" for you?

OK, so I guess sorry is not sufficient. I did read your post and, as I've already said, I did not think that you answered the question. Frustration is not the same as doubt. After reading your post for the third time I still don't see a direct answer in there to the OP. But perhaps that's just me. Perhaps other people found your response relevant. I'm not sure what else I can say.

As for eating babies, preforming seals and suggesting that you owe me something - those are all red herrings that you tossed in. Additionally, I've never accused you of being "too 'atheist'" - partly because I don't know a great deal about you and partly because I don't know what that even means. My point was that if something quacks like a duck it is reasonable to assume that is it a duck. I apply the same methodology in all areas of life, and it was no more intended as a slight against you then when I hear someone talking like theist and assume that that is what they are.

So, again, I apologise for picking you up wrong. You're not an atheist. I accepth that. I also apologise if you think that I am ignoring your point whilst making it myself. Of course, I don't see it like that but there you go.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
...I would think that if ever I became an atheist one thing that would trouble with respects to my world-view was the question of morality - specifically if concepts such as "good" and "bad" could exist in an absolute sense. (I have personally never heard an atheist who gave an adequate answer to this question.)...
This particular atheist has never really understood the question. Why do you need to know the answer? What would the answer mean to you in real terms? Do you think it would enlighten you to a degree where you yourself could be absolutely good? How does religious belief persuade you that Absolute Good and Bad do exist as concepts — by which I presume you mean in some way divorced from the manifest actions and interactions of conscious beings, otherwise they are necessarily relative terms?

Ok. Major sidelining issue; I know.

I would be happy to talk about it in another thread or by PM.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Well, I don't think that whether there is a God is a question open to scientific analysis. But if you want a scientific justification for why there ought to be - as best we can tell (if you don't assume God just made it happen) consciousness arises out of complexity.

Even very simple neural networks are ca[able of surprisingly complex tasks. If this is true, surely the universe is a complex enough interdependent system to have attained consciousness billions of years ago. And if a consciousness the size of a universe is not a God - why not ?

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

@Great Gumby. Evening G2. Just to reassure you, no hidden agenda in the o/p. There's plenty of chat from theists on these threads about personal doubts and challenges - I am genuinely interested in the reflections of those who have or had atheistic beliefs on what made them/ makes them have second thoughts about their worldview. I hope the way I have conducted myself in the course of the discussion reflects that.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
... surely the universe is a complex enough interdependent system to have attained consciousness billions of years ago. And if a consciousness the size of a universe is not a God - why not ?

Um, wtf?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Ramarius
I'd just like to say thank you for such an interesting topic question which has brought a satisfying collection of atheists/non-believers into one thread! [Smile]

HughWillRidmee

quote:
Offline for a few days – don’t go away.

The long post ending with this line - a very good read.
And me too, I'm only away for two days, but will be straight back here asap!

[ 19. July 2012, 07:18: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
... surely the universe is a complex enough interdependent system to have attained consciousness billions of years ago. And if a consciousness the size of a universe is not a God - why not ?
Um, wtf?

How do you think consciousness arises ?

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Oh, in the usual non-bollocks way.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
HughWillRidmee

quote:
Offline for a few days – don’t go away.
The long post ending with this line - a very good read.

Was it? It sounded like just more of the same old tired out atheist dogma to me. Sorry HughWillRidmee (and SusanDoris), it's just my opinion.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
...I would think that if ever I became an atheist one thing that would trouble with respects to my world-view was the question of morality - specifically if concepts such as "good" and "bad" could exist in an absolute sense. (I have personally never heard an atheist who gave an adequate answer to this question.)...
This particular atheist has never really understood the question. Why do you need to know the answer? What would the answer mean to you in real terms? Do you think it would enlighten you to a degree where you yourself could be absolutely good? How does religious belief persuade you that Absolute Good and Bad do exist as concepts — by which I presume you mean in some way divorced from the manifest actions and interactions of conscious beings, otherwise they are necessarily relative terms?

Ok. Major sidelining issue; I know.
I would be happy to talk about it in another thread or by PM.

Let's keep it open to all comers, shall we..?

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
... surely the universe is a complex enough interdependent system to have attained consciousness billions of years ago. And if a consciousness the size of a universe is not a God - why not ?
Um, wtf?

Well, that's one valid answer. [Big Grin]

My own response would be to question how a previously non-conscious universe might at some time in its development attain such a quality. And to postulate instead that consciousness is an innate quality of the universe, which becomes manifest when certain 'bits' of it come to be arranged in a certain way under certain conditions. (See my Carl Sagan strap line, below)

Thus, 'a consciousness the size of a universe' actually is that universe, or at least a function of it. There is no need to call it god. We can just call it the universe.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

The physical universe is big and has lots of components, some of which are structurally complex and which interact in various ways (for example, through the physical effects of gravitation and electromagnetic radiation and so on). Notwithstanding upfucked definitions of terms, consciousness is the product of immense complexity of biological structure and function, but to say the universe must be conscious 'because it’s huge and complex and has functions' is like saying my car must be capable of securing world peace and a cure for cancer whilst cooking perfect lobster thermidor for eight 'because it has a clever fuel injection processor'. Purleaze.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You mean it isn't?

Mine does that every day, and twice on Sundays. [/complexer than thou]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The formulation that I'm familiar with is that a knowable universe requires personhood.

Only trouble is, this gets us into all kinds of a mess with the idea of an unknowable universe, which is a contradiction, as I have just named it!

But we can postulate a universe separate from consciousness, with the proviso, a la Kant, that it can never be known. No, don't be silly, we can suggest that there is an isomorphism between what we observe, and the theoretic universe that we do not experience. 'Zounds, i'faith, Mistress Quickly, thou has exposed thy placket now!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
quetzalcoatl: But we can postulate a universe separate from consciousness, with the proviso, a la Kant, that it can never be known.

That would be the universe where one sock of a number of pairs in my wardrobe went?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think that would be the quark-gluon plasma, which is continually re-energized by odd socks, old holey jeans, and particularly, if you are over 60, by memories. All gone, but not forever, since we reject any such concept.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
... to say the universe must be conscious 'because it’s huge and complex and has functions' is like saying my car must be capable of securing world peace and a cure for cancer whilst cooking perfect lobster thermidor for eight 'because it has a clever fuel injection processor'. Purleaze.

Purleaze, indeed. I'm surprised a consistently conscious yet constantly changing mass of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine, sodium and other trace elements such as yourself should have come up with such an absurd simile.

The molecules that make up your car are not arranged in a way that makes manifest their latent consciousness. But, rearranged in such a way that they can be inhaled or ingested by an influential humanitarian, gifted medical scientist or celebrity chef, their conscious aspect will temporarily be made manifest and they'll be ideally placed to tackle all the problems that are causing you so much concern.

It seems to me that if you don't embrace the notion of latent-manifest consciousness being an inherent function of all stuff, your only other fundamental explanation is that consciousness is imbued by an externally agency — or 'breathed into you', as certain thought systems would put it. Or is there a middle way you can think of?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I have to say that I'm with Yorick on this one. I'm familiar (mostly through Hofstadter) with the idea that complexity can generate consciousness, but I'm not convinced that the links between the constituent parts of the universe could really be the equivalent of our brain's synapses. The speed of light seems to be an obstacle. Also, I'd say that the exchange of information between the Solar System and, say, Alpha Centauri, although existant, is rather limited.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Exactly. People who imagine that the complexity of the physical known universe could be sufficient for the emergence of consciousness because that’s the case with the human mind are failing massively to appreciate the degree of the structural and functional complexity of our cerebral cortices. I mean, massively failing. The human brain is far and away the most complex structure in the known universe, and makes it correspondingly look like a model of the Taj Mahal made from four Lego bricks.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

It's been a while since I read Hofstadter, but I don't think it's just the complexity of the system, it's also the exchange of information between the parts of it. In our brains, the synapses do that. I don't see any mechanism within the universe taking up this role (unless they'll discover some really weird properties of Dark Matter [Biased]

)

[ 19. July 2012, 12:52: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Yup. Anatomy determines function. The complexity of function is all in the interaction of the structural parts, and Saturn cannot interact with the crab nebula with sufficient complexity to conceive its own existence.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Yorick: Saturn cannot interact with the crab nebula with sufficient complexity to conceive its own existence.

Not unless it uses its Death Star moon to send a signal, of course! [Biased]

But I agree with you. If someone wants to believe in a conscious universe, then that's their prerrogative of course. But I don't think you can give a convincing physical 'proof' of it.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Yorick: Saturn cannot interact with the crab nebula with sufficient complexity to conceive its own existence.
Not unless it uses its Death Star moon to send a signal, of course!

But I agree with you. If someone wants to believe in a conscious universe, then that's their prerrogative of course. But I don't think you can give a convincing physical 'proof' of it.

Yorick: As with your car simile, you are trying to satirise my point with inappropriate references — ie, inert, inorganic matter.

LeRoc: Belief isn't really the issue. Consideration of the behaviour of inorganic elements formed into complex organic compounds is what I'm getting at. The resultant consciousness is formed either from something innate in that matter, or it has to be imbued by some external agency. There lies the fundamental difference between atheism and theism. And I think anyone taking an atheist platform has to take the former option seriously.

Is there a high-speed connection between vastly distant elements of the universe? I don't see how that matters. Has the internet age really convinced us that nothing truly exists unless it's constantly chattering to something else? For what it's worth — and I'm stepping into deep water without a rubber ring here — I understand/believe quantum physics holds that there are such high-speed pan-galactic connections at sub-atomic level. Don't ask me to explain that - it's just what I heard.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Yorick: As with your car simile, you are trying to satirise my point with inappropriate references — ie, inert, inorganic matter.

Well, TBQH, I'm struggling to see the universe as a discrete entity of organic, ert matter.

You're a bright chap- please help me to understand what I'm missing here?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
kankucho: Is there a high-speed connection between vastly distant elements of the universe? I don't see how that matters. Has the internet age really convinced us that nothing truly exists unless it's constantly chattering to something else?

The thing is: at least according to Hofstadter, nothing can truly be conscious unless its constituent parts are constantly chattering between eachother. I don't see how this is happening in the universe.

quote:
kankucho: For what it's worth — and I'm stepping into deep water without a rubber ring here — I understand/believe quantum physics holds that there are such high-speed pan-galactic connections at sub-atomic level. Don't ask me to explain that - it's just what I heard.

I think what you're referring to is quantum entanglement. My physics days are behind me, but I'm afraid that I'm rather convinced by the no-communication theorem that says that no FTL communication can happen in this way.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

[EDIT: this is to Yorick]

Well, so far as we know, the whole universe is made up of different combinations of these, entirely inorganic, elements:

http://lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia118A/periodic_table.jpg

Some formations of it exhibit and experience consciousness, without any other x-ingredient that we've yet been able to identify. (Ok, those elements might not account for the whole universe, but they're sufficient to produce conscious existence within our immediate environment). Where would you say that quality comes from — within its own makeup, or from without?

[ 19. July 2012, 13:50: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The thing is: at least according to Hofstadter, nothing can truly be conscious unless its constituent parts are constantly chattering between eachother. I don't see how this is happening in the universe.

Does he mean manifestly or latently conscious? (that's a distinction I'm trying hard but failing to communicate here). You can't make an ark out of an acorn — at least until the acorn's innate potential is made manifest by changes in circumstance.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
kankucho: Does he mean manifestly or latently conscious? (that's a distinction I'm trying hard but failing to communicate here).

I don't think that I completely understand the distinction, but I'd say both.

quote:
kankucho: You can't make an ark out of an acorn — at least until the acorn's innate potential is made manifest by changes in circumstance.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
[That, above.]

Okay, I see. You’re saying that the universe is functionally complex like a human brain because both the universe and a human brain are composed of molecules made of elements. You are actually saying that, right, in all seriousness?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Yorick: Saturn cannot interact with the crab nebula with sufficient complexity to conceive its own existence.
Not unless it uses its Death Star moon to send a signal, of course!

But I agree with you. If someone wants to believe in a conscious universe, then that's their prerrogative of course. But I don't think you can give a convincing physical 'proof' of it.

I agree with that. I think it shows a confusion between scientific method and metaphysics. The arguments for panpsychism are philosophical, and science don't do that. Science doesn't aim to describe reality.

This interchange seems to be a busy one. You get scientists doing bad philosophy these days (no names!), and theologians doing bad science.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science doesn't aim to describe reality.

Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first place.

The comment isn't really aimed at quetzalcoatl, of course, but to our gathering of atheists/almost atheists on this thread.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Well, so far as we know, the whole universe is made up of different combinations of these, entirely inorganic, elements:

http://lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia118A/periodic_table.jpg

Some formations of it exhibit and experience consciousness, without any other x-ingredient that we've yet been able to identify. (Ok, those elements might not account for the whole universe, but they're sufficient to produce conscious existence within our immediate environment). Where would you say that quality comes from — within its own makeup, or from without?
Okay, I see. You’re saying that the universe is functionally complex like a human brain because both the universe and a human brain are composed of molecules made of elements. You are actually saying that, right, in all seriousness?

The universe is functionally complex; don't you agree? [Eek!]

But I wasn't drawing any causal parallels to the complexity of the human brain — which is, arguably, the universe's most complex achievement, formed entirely from stuff found lying around on its own periodic table, and giving manifestation to its own propensity for consciousness.

I could scrub all that and tell you that consciousness is shipped in from God, if you really want me to give your atheist propensity for doubt a bit of a shove in the direction of the Ship's default position. But I'd just be humouring you if did that.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science doesn't aim to describe reality.
Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first place.

The comment isn't really aimed at quetzalcoatl, of course, but to our gathering of atheists/almost atheists on this thread.

That would be a silly thing to say, as it would be a philosophical argument, and not a scientific claim, therefore rules itself out.

I would say that scientists make observations about appearances. Of course, they also make predictions on the basis of various hypotheses, about probable further observations.

You can, if you want, say that this describes 'reality', of course you can, but that is not a scientific claim, again, but a philosophical one, and again seems to be ruled out by any scientistic argument.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That would be a silly thing to say, as it would be a philosophical argument, and not a scientific claim, therefore rules itself out.

I would say that scientists make observations about appearances. Of course, they also make predictions on the basis of various hypotheses, about probable further observations.

You can, if you want, say that this describes 'reality', of course you can, but that is not a scientific claim, again, but a philosophical one, and again seems to be ruled out by any scientistic argument.

Scientistic or scientific? Anyway, in all that you've rather nicely defined the difference between "science" and "scientism", which saves me the trouble. It is unfortunate (and unbeknown to me before this thread started) that few scientismists would admit to holding such a philosophy.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
The universe is functionally complex; don't you agree?

No, absolutely not! Not when compared with the structural and functional complexity of the human brain, which complexity we agree (I think) is a prerequisite for animal consciousness.

Do you have any idea how insanely complex is the arrangement of the structure of the cerebral cortex, and the insanely complex way it functions?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That would be a silly thing to say, as it would be a philosophical argument, and not a scientific claim, therefore rules itself out.

I would say that scientists make observations about appearances. Of course, they also make predictions on the basis of various hypotheses, about probable further observations.

You can, if you want, say that this describes 'reality', of course you can, but that is not a scientific claim, again, but a philosophical one, and again seems to be ruled out by any scientistic argument.
Scientistic or scientific? Anyway, in all that you've rather nicely defined the difference between "science" and "scientism", which saves me the trouble. It is unfortunate (and unbeknown to me before this thread started) that few scientismists would admit to holding such a philosophy.

Does anyone actually argue for scientism? Dawkins is always getting accused of it, but I doubt if he does really.

It also seems to be ambiguous, depending on whether you say that science can describe/explain everything, or everything factual, or something like that.

But anyone who actually argues that only scientific descriptions are of value is trashing aesthetics, ethics, other big chunks of philosophy, maths, logic, and so on. So it seems unlikely. I can't remember if the logical positivists ever said this, but of course, it meant that their own declarations were without value!

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
The universe is functionally complex; don't you agree?
No, absolutely not! Not when compared with the structural and functional complexity of the human brain, which complexity we agree (I think) is a prerequisite for animal consciousness.

Do you have any idea how insanely complex is the arrangement of the structure of the cerebral cortex, and the insanely complex way it functions?

I think you're setting up a strange and impertinent duality here. We can certainly agree that the human brain and animal consciousness in general are immeasurably complex. But these are forms and functions entirely derived from the forms and functions of the universe itself, and so qualify the universe-itself as immeasurably complex — however unimpressed you might be by its less sophisticated gaseous and rocky bits.

[ 19. July 2012, 15:58: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

kankucho, please forgive me, but I haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about. The brain is made of stuff we find elsewhere in the universe. So the hell what? [Ultra confused]

[spelt your name wrong- apologies. What does it mean, btw?]

[ 19. July 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Is this an argument that the universe has produced consciousness, therefore ... errrm, well, it's, kind of, I mean to say, errm.

Well, it's capable of being conscious, I suppose.

But so what? The universe has produced cancer, so it is obviously capable of being cancerous. Does this mean that the universe itself is cancerous?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Even more annoying, when you try to edit after about 14 seconds, it actually says, 'Nice try', as if you were doing something reprehensible!

I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.

Incorrect.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Does anyone actually argue for scientism? Dawkins is always getting accused of it, but I doubt if he does really.

This is the thing. I would accuse Richard Dawkins of holding scientistic views, but what I would call "scientism," he would call "science." And it seems this is so for most of those who hold similar views - Peter Atkins for example.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.

Incorrect.

Is it though? Incorrect I mean...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I doubt if Dawkins would say that for example aesthetic judgements can be defined scientifically. I could be wrong.

Certainly, Harris seems to be saying that ethical values can be so defined. About 98% of the reviews I have read of this have said, what total crap.

Of course, sometimes you get the abysmal argument that everything is in the brain anyway, and one day we will be able to scan it all. Yeah, that will be really useful, if you're on a date. Whip out a scanner, scan your partner's brain for signs of sexual excitement, and you're home free.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.

Incorrect.
Is it though? Incorrect I mean...

Yes, of course it is. It is perfectly OK to say that we don't know how consciousness arises.

It's possible that consciousness comes from God, but that 'possible' is going to be hard to convert into 'probable' or 'necessarily true'.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
kankucho, please forgive me, but I haven't got a fucking clue what you're on about. The brain is made of stuff we find elsewhere in the universe. So the hell what?

[spelt your name wrong- apologies. What does it mean, btw?]

So the hell... consciousness is a quality exhibited and experienced by base inorganic elements when arranged in a particular complex way.

Hence, as Sagan succinctly put it, "We are the way in which the cosmos can know itself".

Even if a fully formed and fully functioning Yorick were the sole conscious product of an eternity of bumping, grinding and exploding machinations of an otherwise entirely non-conscious and inorganic universe, you, Yorick, would be the consciousness of the universe. And the universe as a whole would be a manifestly conscious entity.

Kankucho = 1) a bird from oriental mythology; 2) an expression of the effect my internet activity has on the rest of my life

[edit: quote added due to page turn]

[ 19. July 2012, 16:35: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That sounds like the fallacy of composition.

The universe produces cancer. Therefore the universe as a whole is a cancerous entity.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is this an argument that the universe has produced consciousness, therefore ... errrm, well, it's, kind of, I mean to say, errm.

Well, it's capable of being conscious, I suppose.

But so what? The universe has produced cancer, so it is obviously capable of being cancerous. Does this mean that the universe itself is cancerous?

Semantically we could go down that route, I suppose. How would we answer that question when applied to an individual..?

- John has cancer.
- Is the cancer all over him?
- No, it's just in his lungs.
- Oh. So John, as a whole, doesn't have cancer.
- Do you want to try telling him that?

quote:
I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.

Incorrect.

I'm not sure who's arguing what there but it's sounding like a 'god of the gaps' claim.

I think there's a QED on science not being able to pin down the intricacies of consciousness, although I look forward to further developments in neuroscience, which is just beginning to stab at it. But I suspect we're never going to detect latent consciousness lurking within inert matter by conventional scientific means. That particular cartesian idea went out with the trash a long time ago.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first.

When you've finished with the straw can I borrow it to thatch a roof?

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ramarius
I'd just like to say thank you for such an interesting topic question which has brought a satisfying collection of atheists/non-believers into one thread

Thank you, Susan, for taking the trouble to post that.

Regards,

Remarius

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first.

When you've finished with the straw can I borrow it to thatch a roof?

If we accept in general terms there are questions that can't be answered by the scientific method, what sorts of questions would say science can't answer? And what other discipline would you say is better suited to answer those 'other' questions?

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

I started following this thread, all ready to make my contribution, when it got all shouty so I haven't read it all. Sorry if I repeat some things others have said.

It is difficult to answer the original question because, like many atheists I'd guess, I don't see it as a conviction. My world view or philosophy or whatever is composed of lots of things: political, cultural, friendships, ethics and so on. It just happens not to include believing in God. My nearest analogy would be be in terms of another omission from my character: a lack of interest in modern classical music.

I hear people swooning over what to me is an odd collection of discordant sounds. Some, I suspect, really like it much less than they pretend but they can talk the talk. I guess I could learn to do that and, to be polite, sometimes try to. Others seem to really get it. Their appreciation is 'bred in the bone', 'flesh of my flesh' and all that. I'm happy for them and I can see it enlarges their life wonderfully but it doesn't do it for me. I listen, as patiently as I can, but nothing happens. I'm happy to accept that others have a real experience but that doesn't make it real for me. And I feel the same about belief in God.

In my early twenties, I felt I was being unfair. I should, in some way, try Christianity. Just reading books about something isn't knowing it. A friendly vicar talked with me and gave me stuff to read. I also had the use of his library. Though I can't remember any of it now beyond the first few apocalyptic pages, Karl Barth's commentary on the Epistle to the Romans really 'blew me away' which is pretty much what Barth said about the disciples. I got confirmed, attended church, prayed, did some churchy things but never found anything which seemed to me different from my atheistical life.

By that I meant, and this continues to be my feeling, how does believing in God make a difference to my life? I could be a Deist. Despite some rather rude earlier contributions it seems to me to have content. I think the Unitarians were too polite to respond. But in what way would my life be different? An extra belief, new concepts to struggle with. Being a theist is the same really unless you add some religion specific trappings and get a Christian, Jewish, Islamic or whatever Theity (is that a word?).

The God of the Gaps has never appealed to me. It seems like idolatry to think "I can't explain this so God must exist to make it so and I will worship him". Every day things happen which I can't explain. Maybe no one can, maybe humans aren't bright enough to explain. Maybe there is no explanation. So they stay unexplained in my mind.

Since my first degree was in Physics I'm not a believer in scientism. We have a few crude approximations which give us some rough ideas about a few things. Some are pretty (in an odd mathematical way). The belief that science can explain everything seems much more common in the life sciences.

I've always belonged to groups who seek, in some way, a better world. I think that if we oppose war, house the homeless, protect the widows and orphans, feed the hungry, and generally improve the bottom of the social heap we'll have a better world. Would believing in God make a difference? He seems to be waiting for us to sort it out.

There are people who make me feel a faith could be a good thing. A friend, a Somali asylum seeker, tried to convert me to Islam. I said that would seem odd in a Christian country. Ok he said, so be a Christian, Allah accepts Christians into Heaven. I said No. "Allah also accepts Jews", he tried again. I said "Sorry, but no". We continued our walk. Eventually Mahmood said: "I think Allah will do a deal with anyone who has tried to do good. He'll let them in as well". A lesson from a truck driver who just wanted to save his family from a crazy war.

If believers were all like Mahmood I might give it a try. Many of the Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and so on that I meet seem to be admirable. But a lot of others seem too interested in how to build/reform/preserve the institution they belong to rather than making the world a better place. I know that's unfair. All faiths do a great deal of good but they can do it without me.

Oops, sorry it's so long.

[ 19. July 2012, 20:13: Message edited by: que sais-je ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first.

When you've finished with the straw can I borrow it to thatch a roof?

Sorry, but I don't get it - my analogy seems to be precisely what scientismists arrogantly seem to claim. And just because they claim to be "scientists" doesn't mean that they don't follow scientism.

quote:
If we accept in general terms there are questions that can't be answered by the scientific method, what sorts of questions would say science can't answer? And what other discipline would you say is better suited to answer those 'other' questions?

How about "the meaning of life"? Scientismists would say this is a nonsensical question and don't try to answer it. Philosophers and theologians take such a question seriously, but our celebrity-scientismists will just patronise and debunk them in the same way as they do the question itself.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

Evening Mark - 'twas a question for George rather than your good self.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

I've lurked here for a while and I thought an answer to the OP would be an appropriate first post.

Like some others up thread, a miracle would certainly give me pause, as would some good evidence for the effectiveness of intercessory prayer or faith healing.

Other than that, I can't think of anything. Most religious claims are behind firewalls of antiquity or subjective experience. Philosophical arguments for God, while fun, settle nothing.

On the question as to why atheists don't seem to be very good at doubting, in my case I was brought up to be religious - I attended Sunday School, went to church and dutifully prayed - and my doubts were worked through over many years as I went through weakening belief to none. My atheism is of the negative kind - weak, soft, agnostic-atheist, whatever - I've had enough of those pointless definition arguments to last a lifetime. Strangely, though, I don't think I have met - in the real world or online - the other kind, an atheist who asserts that there is definitely no God.

One more thing, I should imagine that in the not too distant future, someone on here will accuse me of scientism.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
..One more thing, I should imagine that in the not too distant future, someone on here will accuse me of scientism.

You called? I'm only joking, I'll back off from that for a while - enjoy the thread! [Smile]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
..One more thing, I should imagine that in the not too distant future, someone on here will accuse me of scientism.
You called? I'm only joking, I'll back off from that for a while - enjoy the thread!

My impression, mentioned above, is that scientism affects biologists, psychologists, neuro-scientists etc much more than it does physicists, chemists etc. OK physicists may think an explanation of creation doesn't require God but in other areas the experimental/mathematical disciplines of their subject may force them to consider a sharper focus. In the life sciences there are so many variables and unquantifiable factors that practitioners sometime simplify everything to get a sort of silly certainty.

E O Wilson's "Consilience" is one of the silliest works of scientism IMHO. One example is his claim that there may be 'scientific' evidence for all novels following one of nine plot lines. So reading "Pride and Prejudice" is really no different from reading any Mills and Boon story, nore indeed is one Mills and Boon offering different "in real scientific terms" from any other. 'Baby' and 'bath water' spring to mind.

The link between this and doubt, atheist or otherwise, is that some people can cope better with uncertainty than others. Doubt is anathema to some which gives scientism on one side and religious dogmatism and/or God of the gaps on the other.

And us doubters make a similar idolatory of doubting. It's a good way of avoiding making decisions, just as certainty is a good way of avoiding thought.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
kankucho: So the hell... consciousness is a quality exhibited and experienced by base inorganic elements when arranged in a particular complex way.

You're still missing the important part.

Of course we don't have the final answer about what conscience is or what causes it. But no matter how you look at it, an important aspect of it is that some base elements are arranged in a particular way and interact with eachother.

For our brains to have consciousness, it's not enough for them to be made of a lot of complicated stuff, and with everything in the right place. You actually need the synapses firing electro-chemical signals between them. A brain without this exchange of information between its parts isn't conscious.

It's this second part that I don't see when it comes to the universe. Paraphrasing Yorick here, I can't see any meaningful interaction between Saturn and the Crab Nebula. There's nothing between them that compares with the interaction between the neurons in our brain.

Of course, you could conjecture some very esoterical physics that would account for such interactions. But it would be no more than that: a conjecture.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is this an argument that the universe has produced consciousness, therefore ... errrm, well, it's, kind of, I mean to say, errm.

Well, it's capable of being conscious, I suppose.

But so what? The universe has produced cancer, so it is obviously capable of being cancerous. Does this mean that the universe itself is cancerous?
Semantically we could go down that route, I suppose. How would we answer that question when applied to an individual..?

- John has cancer.
- Is the cancer all over him?
- No, it's just in his lungs.
- Oh. So John, as a whole, doesn't have cancer.
- Do you want to try telling him that?

quote:
I was aiming to add that the argument might be that consciousness cannot be derived from adding physical bits to each other, therefore must be derived from God.

Incorrect.

I'm not sure who's arguing what there but it's sounding like a 'god of the gaps' claim.

You are doing a nifty bit of goalpost moving there. The fallacy of composition applies to identity relations, expressed by verbs such as 'be', but not to relations of containment, expressed by 'have'.

Thus, the sentence, 'hair contains keratin, therefore the body contains keratin', sounds OK to me.

But 'hair is brittle, therefore the body is brittle', does not sound OK.

You have tried to pull a fast one, with 'part of the universe is conscious, therefore the universe as a whole is a conscious entity'. Doesn't work.

The reason for this is fairly clear; the notion of containing something is logically transitive, thus if a part of something contains X, then the whole of it contains X. However, identity is not transitive: thus, if my hair is red, it doesn't mean that I am red.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[qb] Hmmmm... interesting, because I thought these days, science was supposed to have the answers to all questions, and anything it can never answer isn't deemed as a meaningful or sensible question in the first.

When you've finished with the straw can I borrow it to thatch a roof?

quote:
Sorry, but I don't get it - my analogy seems to be precisely what scientismists arrogantly seem to claim. And just because they claim to be "scientists" doesn't mean that they don't follow scientism.

I have never heard a scientist say, "We have the answers to all questions". Not once. What I have often heard them say is "We don't know".

Now just a second while I look up what scientism means............

[ 20. July 2012, 10:34: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I think scientists spend a lot of time saying what is false, and what is not known.

Can anyone actually cite someone claiming that 'science describes everything', or the like. I can't think of anybody. Does Dennett?

In any case, science is a method not a philosophical outlook.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE]If we accept in general terms there are questions that can't be answered by the scientific method, what sorts of questions would say science can't answer? And what other discipline would you say is better suited to answer those 'other' questions?

That's a really good question. I'm not a scientist or a philosopher so I doubt I can give a good answer but for what it's worth....I guess science can answer questions about things that are testable and or observable. But as I say I'm not a scientist so I could be wrong.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

An obvious example of non-scientific knowledge, is the history of science. This is surely a very valuable contribution to our understanding of humanity, but it cannot be termed scientific.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... if my hair is red, it doesn't mean that I am red.

It does, however, mean that you are a person with red hair. Your red hair is an aspect of you as a whole.

quote:
You have tried to pull a fast one, with 'part of the universe is conscious, therefore the universe as a whole is a conscious entity'. Doesn't work.

I can't find the phrase you have put in inverted commas anywhere in what I've written. If I have anywhere said that the universe IS manifestly conscious, then I have done so in error, and I apologise. What I think I have been arguing that matter (in and of the universe) HAS the potential to manifest consciousness when composed in certain biologically complex patterns - ie, as living matter. It IS conscious when that potential is made manifest by circumstance.

To say that the universe has consciousness does not require evidence of rocks pondering the meaning of their existence. Rocks are not 'a way for the cosmos to know itself' but, since they are not manifestly conscious, that fact probably doesn't bother them much.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

kankucho

The rubbish software on this forum doesn't seem to have post numbers, but at the top of this page (I think), you said this:

Even if a fully formed and fully functioning Yorick were the sole conscious product of an eternity of bumping, grinding and exploding machinations of an otherwise entirely non-conscious and inorganic universe, you, Yorick, would be the consciousness of the universe. And the universe as a whole would be a manifestly conscious entity.

I think that illustrates the fallacy of composition.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
For our brains to have consciousness, it's not enough for them to be made of a lot of complicated stuff, and with everything in the right place. You actually need the synapses firing electro-chemical signals between them. A brain without this exchange of information between its parts isn't conscious.

No problem there. You've just added a bit of detail about what the appropriate circumstances are. Energy is interacting with matter throughout the universe. When it does so in the way you describe, it manifests consciousness.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's this second part that I don't see when it comes to the universe. Paraphrasing Yorick here, I can't see any meaningful interaction between Saturn and the Crab Nebula. There's nothing between them that compares with the interaction between the neurons in our brain.

I can't see any meaningful interaction between Saturn and the Crab Nebula either (although, in truth, I haven't been paying much attention to them lately; have you?). I don't get why you and Yorick are so hung up on this. As I just stated to quetzalcoatl: rocks are not a way for the cosmos to know itself. However, when formed into planets, or parts thereof, they can provide an excellent environment to support consciousness-manifesting carboniferous forms, and with which those forms can interact thereby fuelling the conscious processes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I can't see the force of these arguments. Matter, in certain arrangements, produces consciousness.

Err, what now?

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
kankucho

The rubbish software on this forum doesn't seem to have post numbers, but at the top of this page (I think), you said this:

Even if a fully formed and fully functioning Yorick were the sole conscious product of an eternity of bumping, grinding and exploding machinations of an otherwise entirely non-conscious and inorganic universe, you, Yorick, would be the consciousness of the universe. And the universe as a whole would be a manifestly conscious entity.

It's a fair cop, guv. However, I hope I've qualified what I meant with subsequent posts: not every part of an entity need manifest consciousness in order for that (whole) entity to qualify as conscious.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't see the force of these arguments. Matter, in certain arrangements, produces consciousness.

Err, what now?

Some way back, we were discussing what might cause an atheist to doubt his/her position and I came in to help the atheists out by showing how consciousness (and, actually, life) might be innate, and not require the input of a supernatural agency.

I wonder sometimes if Yorick knows which side his bread is buttered. [Big Grin]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't see the force of these arguments. Matter, in certain arrangements, produces consciousness.

Err, what now?
Some way back, we were discussing what might cause an atheist to doubt his/her position and I came in to help the atheists out by showing how consciousness (and, actually, life) might be innate, and not require the input of a supernatural agency.

I wonder sometimes if Yorick knows which side his bread is buttered.

The argument, consciousness, therefore God, is a very tough one to make. I think Swinburne attempts it.

I suppose it might go, mind cannot come from matter, and God is Mind, which is Locke's argument somewhere, isn't it? Too lazy to check.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Let me throw into this boiling pot of pottage the thought that, perhaps, consciousness arises from the evolution of life forms that exhibit a means of reproduction and an ability to take in nourishment. These two rudimentary drives have inevitably brought about the higher and higher abilities to reproduce and take in food through movement, sensory mechanisms and physical enhancements (feet, hands etc).

I would propose that consciousness was one of the facets necessary for further life form evolution. The harder question behind this is where or why did the desire/drive to maintain "life" come from?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
kankucho: I can't see any meaningful interaction between Saturn and the Crab Nebula either (although, in truth, I haven't been paying much attention to them lately; have you?).

As a matter of fact, I have. I read about most of the newest discoveries made by Cassini and the Hubble Telescope.

quote:
kankucho: As I just stated to quetzalcoatl: rocks are not a way for the cosmos to know itself. However, when formed into planets, or parts thereof, they can provide an excellent environment to support consciousness-manifesting carboniferous forms, and with which those forms can interact thereby fuelling the conscious processes.

The conscious processes of what?

If you want to think spiritually about a conscious cosmos that manifests itself in the conscious beings that inhabit it, I have no problem with that. It's only when you try to make a 'scientific' case of this on the basis of the complexity of the universe that I have a problem.

Based on the ideas of Hofstadter, complex systems with complex interactions between its parts can generate consciousness. Some people believe that this is all that's needed, other people believe that there is something more. Since there is no proof for either case, the debate continues.

FWIW, although I appreciate Hofstadter's work, I'm in the second camp.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

I wonder if the factor that most causes atheists to question their beliefs, is the practical experiences of those beliefs. Whilst atheism has certainly been on the rise in Western Europe, between 1998 and 2008 atheism has lost ground to theism in the USA, Germany, and Japan. Most remarkably of all is Russia. In 1998 around one in five people described themselves as atheists. In 2008 the figure had dropped to around 6%. It seems that despite decades of militant scientific atheism that most basic of beliefs - that we are far, far more than accidental lumps of matter on an obscure world in a vast an inhospitable universe, resolutely refuses to be extinguished.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I wonder if the factor that most causes atheists to question their beliefs, is the practical experiences of those beliefs. Whilst atheism has certainly been on the rise in Western Europe, between 1998 and 2008 atheism has lost ground to theism in the USA, Germany, and Japan. Most remarkably of all is Russia. In 1998 around one in five people described themselves as atheists. In 2008 the figure had dropped to around 6%. It seems that despite decades of militant scientific atheism that most basic of beliefs - that we are far, far more than accidental lumps of matter on an obscure world in a vast an inhospitable universe, resolutely refuses to be extinguished.

Russia is a special case. People were punished for being non-atheistic in the Soviet Union and rewarded for being atheists. That has changed. About all you can conclude is that people will tell people coming around what they know they're supposed to say and there's a large number of people who toe the party line.

Similarly there are a lot of atheists in the US who are under-reported because they are afraid of censure from their neighbors.

There is a certainly a rise in religious belief in the United States and the other countries. Waves of religious fervor sweep certain areas periodically; see the Burnt Over Region in Upstate New York. But there's also been a oncreasing coalescing of people who are willing to acknowledge their non-belief.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I wonder if the factor that most causes atheists to question their beliefs, is the practical experiences of those beliefs. Whilst atheism has certainly been on the rise in Western Europe, between 1998 and 2008 atheism has lost ground to theism in the USA, Germany, and Japan. Most remarkably of all is Russia. In 1998 around one in five people described themselves as atheists. In 2008 the figure had dropped to around 6%. It seems that despite decades of militant scientific atheism that most basic of beliefs - that we are far, far more than accidental lumps of matter on an obscure world in a vast an inhospitable universe, resolutely refuses to be extinguished.

I would be interested in cites. One problem is there is a difference between non-religious, atheist, and lack of belief in god(s) (a Pew forum survey of the US a few years ago found that some self-described atheists believed in a personal god and that quite a few disbelievers in god were Christian) so the questions asked are important.

For the US I have seen no evidence that atheism has lost ground between 1998 and the present. The Gallup poll shows that 'nones' in 1998 were 6% and in 2011, 13%. However 'nones' can include a multitude. The Pew US Religious Landscape survey of 2007 showed that 'nones' were 16.1% but of that only 1.6% were atheist and 2.4% agnostic (however 8% didn't believe in god either personal or impersonal [this included 3% of those who were Catholic]).

The NORC meta-survey "Belief about God across Time and Countries" (April 2012) might be what you are using though the numbers don't quite work out right. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/Beliefs%20about%20God%20Report.docx

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0