Call to abandon Atheism

Clara Tea · Dec 27, 2020

Some atheists might assert that there is no God. Other atheists refuse to believe in anything that is not provable (Fred Flintstone, Santa, the tooth fairy) because to believe in God is to believe in everything (unless there is reason to believe in God and not believe in Fred Flintstone).

Thus, some atheists are not making an "unprovable" negative assertion. Rather, they will not believe until there is proof. Refusal to believe is not the same as asserting that something is not true.

From our paleolithic ancestors, we've inherited curiosity and knowledge. Ug merely grabbed a woman by the hair and that became his slave-wife. Og, on the other hand, was filled with intellectual pursuits...invented fire (ouch)...invented the wheel (but since it was triangular and didn't want to turn, he invented the travois), and discovered the cave (pity he didn't discover a way out when it caved in).

We all have the capacity to learn...later Ug invented the spear and finally his natural cruelty paid off with meat from hunting.

Religion then followed...appeasing the volcano God by tossing the woman in the volcano (now no one to hand him beer while telling stories of hunting to his buddies). Then the invention of tossing only virgins in volcanoes, so we can keep our significant others and keep the supply of beer flowing.

Bowling was a handy invention for knocking down those who didn't believe in our volcano Gods.

Clothes were invented shortly thereafter, because the longer we keep our women slaves, the more clothes seem necessary.

Now we spend decades in schools learning to make machines that require decades of learning to understand.

In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, they programmed the most advanced computer in the galaxy to find the meaning of life. It computed the problem for a million years and came up with the answer......42. 42 was the coincidence number that was tied into every important event (from people's addresses to dates of events).

It seemed simpler in cave days, but we seem to have all of the answers now. Except.....what to do with pollution...how to cure incurable diseases....high speed accidents (wasn't much of a problem with triangular wheels), etc.

PureX · Dec 27, 2020

MikeF said:
And so I flatly reject your assertion that we cannot know anything until we know everything.

I think we need to differentiate between "knowing", and "truly knowing", here. There is an old parable about some blind men and an elephant. Wherein each of a half dozen blind men is led up to an elephant so as to get to "know it" by touching it; because they cannot see it. But of course each one touches a different part of the elephant, and so gains a formulates different idea in his mind about what an elephant is. When asked what an elephant is, they each gave a very different description, because each held a very different idea in their minds, based on their actual experience of the elephant. That's what we call "knowing": that actual direct experience. And yet that experience for we humans is limited, and subjectively understood, and as a result is uniquely inaccurate. Yes, we gain knowledge of existence through our experience of it. But that knowledge is always going to be uniquely inaccurate for the same reason those blind men's knowledge of the elephant is inevitably uniquely inaccurate. Because they could not fully experience the elephant; they could not fully "know" it. They could only surmise a uniquely inaccurate idea of an elephant.

MikeF said:
And as discussed elsewhere, we never live by "faith". We live by reasoned expectation based on experience.

But as I have just pointed out, that experience is limited, subjective, and therefor and uniquely inaccurate. So for us to trust in our presumed expectations, is not an act of true knowledge, as you seem to be suggesting. It's an act of faith. It only seems like we're acting on knowledge if we ignore how much we don't actually know, and how inaccurate what we think we know, is.

MikeF said:
We know the apple will never fly off into space absent some external force that causes it to do so.

That depends on where the apple is, doesn't it. And we didn't even know that just a few hundred years ago. And a few hundred years from know, the whole presumption might seem laughable.

MikeF said:
That most people are uncomfortable with the unknown, I fully agree. That many need the universe fully explained in a way that provides a purpose that puts humanity at the center and provides an afterlife, may have more to do with how the majority are socialized. It would be interesting to see how the percentages might change if all were raised under a non-theistic paradigm.

You seem to be forgetting that you are human, too. And that your paradigms are just as uniquely inaccurate as anyone else's is. You are also one of those blind men, after all. And you don't know the elephant any more than they do.

PureX · Dec 27, 2020

blü 2 said:
I may have said this to you before, but I begin with three assumptions, which have in common that I can't demonstrate their correctness without first assuming they're correct, which is why they're assumptions: that a world exists external to the self; that our senses are capable of informing us about that world; and that reason is a valid tool. You wouldn't post here if you didn't assume the first two, and I trust you think reason is a valid tool.

I understand. But then you really have no other choice but to make these assumptions, do you? Even though you know they ARE assumptions. Because you have no other possibilities available to you.

And keep in mind that they ARE assumptions. The only reason you differentiate between what is "you" and what is "not you", is control. You and the environment that generated you are the same 'thing'. The same 'happening'. The big differentiation, for you, is that some of this phenomenal event that's taking place an and around you, you can control, by will, and the rest you cannot. And it's that issue of control that then drives you to want to "know" the part of the phenomenal happening that you can't control.

blü 2 said:
I agree there are no absolute statements about reality, there are no absolute truths except this one.

Well, not for we humans, anyway. The one thing we can know for certain is that we don't know anything for certain. Which is why we end up having to live by faith, as opposed to our knowledge. And yet interestingly, a great many of us refuse to recognize this most basic fact of our own existence. We are just that freaked out by the vulnerability of our unknowing.

blü 2 said:
But the physical sciences, whose brief it is to examine reality, to explore, describe and seek to explain what's out there, are not justified by their access to absolute truth, because there's no such thing. Their justification comes, on an ongoing basis, from whether what they figure out works or not.

"Works", meaning control. All we have that differentiates us from the world, is control. A very interesting thing, that.

blü 2 said:
If you compare our present knowledge of medicine (including studies of the brain and its functions), biology, genetics, cosmology, electronics, machinery, materials, on and on, with what we knew and could do in 1720, 1820, 1920, 1950, 1990, 2010, I think you'll agree that we do make progress, we do extend human knowledge and capacities, in short that science works.

We only extend our control. We're still clueless about anything else.

Trailblazer · Dec 27, 2020

What seems odd to me is how long this thread got in such a short period of time... What is it about the need of atheists to defend atheism and their label as atheists? It really needs no defense since it is the default position.

MikeF · Dec 27, 2020

Joe W said:
Sorry. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. Let's try this. Despite the fact that I own multiple types of ovens (convection, tandoori, toaster, microwave, kiln, and pizza) I find using the term 'oven' useful.

I quite agree. The term oven is quite useful. But I must say, I don't find this analogy relevant to the discussion. Do you refer to your automobile as a horseless carriage?

Joe W said:
That statement makes no sense unless you are engaging in black and white thinking. That I must either accept your position that the effects of theistic language throughout the culture are universal, or that they have no effect. No middle ground. If that is your position, then your position is noted.

I think I am capable of dealing in subtle shades of grey, but I could be deluding myself.

As to the criticisms, you have not accurately described the position that I have expressed to you.

Joe W said:
The fact that our culture is steeped in the language of theism does not get you to the conclusion that everything is steeped in the paradigm that a god exists.

So we are in agreement that our culture is steeped in the language of theism. We are making progress. I did not conclude that everything is steeped in the paradigm that god exists. I am talking about the psychological phenomena of confirmation bias and the effect of theistic language bias on theists. I'm not sure I can be much clearer.

Are you still under the assumption that I have been arguing in some way that god or gods exist? Really?

Joe W said:
You are arguing that because the normative behavior, thinking, and/or views of the members of a given culture are based on assumption X, that any given behavior, thinking, and/or views of any specific person from that culture are necessarily based on assumption X. Or to bring this home, that because I am a member of a culture where most members form their thinking and sentences under the assumption that there is a god, that I specifically, being a member of that culture, must form my thinking and sentences. Even ignoring the fact that is a fallacy of division, that obviously false.

All I can say to this is that it seems it is you who keeps falling into black and white thinking. We shall leave it here. For the record, I am emphatically arguing against theism. Cheers.

Trailblazer · Dec 27, 2020

Twilight Hue said:
How can you abandon a term for a God that just isn't there?

Just because we cannot see God does not mean He is not there....
But where there is is anyone's best guess and it certainly is nowhere near here.

blü 2 · Dec 27, 2020

PureX said:
I understand. But then you really have no other choice but to make these assumptions, do you? Even though you know they ARE assumptions. Because you have no other possibilities available to you.

Yes, as I said, they're assumptions because I can't independently demonstrate that they're correct. The important thing is to state them clearly so there's no misunderstanding.

PureX said:
The only reason you differentiate between what is "you" and what is "not you", is control.

No, the reason I differentiate between self and external-to-self is because evolution has equipped me with senses that convey information to self, and with the software to interpret sensory input. Indeed I can and do use that information to control a lot of things, but long before I get to control anything I start with survival eg the infant very shortly after birth instinctively seeking the breast and instinctively sucking and swallowing (processes triggered by sensory input).

PureX said:
You and the environment that generated you are the same 'thing'.

Other humans are part of my environment, and I see them as unitary; but each of them is not-me, not the self that is fundamental to my relating to the external-to-self. You may have come across the idea ─ I think from Piaget ─ that the new-born infant perceives itself and mother as the one thing, and then slowly starts to learn the difference.

PureX said:
The big differentiation, for you, is that some of this phenomenal event that's taking place an and around you, you can control, by will, and the rest you cannot. And it's that issue of control that then drives you to want to "know" the part of the phenomenal happening that you can't control.

I wouldn't have put it like that ─ rather, in terms of curiosity as a reaction favoring survival, so that one can choose what to do with what one learns. But no argument that control is an important one of those possibilities.

PureX said:
The one thing we can know for certain is that we don't know anything for certain. Which is why we end up having to live by faith, as opposed to our knowledge.

We live largely as we've evolved to live, and we mix instinct, learnt behaviors, pragmatism, inductive conclusions ('worked last time!'), and trying our luck. I have very little sense of 'living by faith' as an accurate description of how I live. In particular I think behavior based on past experience ─ call it induction ─ is more reasoned conduct than simply 'faith'.

ppp · Dec 27, 2020

Are you really 60? I would have thought you would have gotten sick of the word 'paradigm' back in the 90's. We used to overuse it then, too.

MikeF said:
I quite agree. The term oven is quite useful. But I must say, I don't find this analogy relevant to the discussion. Do you refer to your automobile as a horseless carriage?

Too bad. I find your rejecting the use of 'skepticism' because there are so many types to be directly analogous to someone rejecting the use of 'oven' because there are so many types.

MikeF said:
I think I am capable of dealing in subtle shades of grey, but I could be deluding myself. As to the criticisms, you have not accurately described the position that I have expressed to you.

Your own words demonstrate otherwise.

MikeF said:
So we are in agreement that our culture is steeped in the language of theism. We are making progress.

I was already here. Glad you caught up. And congrats on your progress!

MikeF said:
I am talking about the psychological phenomena of confirmation bias and the effect of theistic language bias on theists. I'm not sure I can be much clearer.

This is flummery. Neither the words 'atheist' nor 'theist' are theistic language. But let's pretend for a moment that you have provided support for your claim, and convinced me that they using those words generates some sense of confirmation bias in whatever percentage of theists that you happen to claim.

What do you think should be my motivation for no longer using those words? Be succinct and to the point.

MikeF said:
Are you still under the assumption that I have been arguing in some way that god or gods exist? Really?

I was never under that assumption, Mike. Again, your head. Not mine.

MikeF said:
All I can say to this is that it seems it is you who keeps falling into black and white thinking.

That just boils down to, Nuh Uh. I'm not! You are! Noted.

Straw Dog · Dec 28, 2020

MikeF said:
So, any takers? Anyone ready to abandon the label Atheist?

Yikes! I didn’t realize we were obligated to identify exclusively with such limited labels. Um... uh... you kind of just put me on the spot there.

Typically, I enjoy entertaining possibilities without identifying until something becomes viable enough to act upon. I didn’t realize I had to bear the weight of a defined paradigm upon my shoulders. Are we meant to be that inflexible?

PureX · Dec 28, 2020

Trailblazer said:
What seems odd to me is how long this thread got in such a short period of time... What is it about the need of atheists to defend atheism and their label as atheists? It really needs no defense since it is the default position.

They know it's not logically a default position. It's why they are so defensive about it.

ppp · Dec 28, 2020

PureX said:
They know it's not logically a default position. It's why they are so defensive about it.

The map is not the territory. If you are going to whine gracelessly, as least try to avoid thinking magically.

SeekingAllTruth · Dec 28, 2020

My take is a little different, I believe there is a Higher Intelligence out there somewhere but It/He is useless to us down here so why bother with It/Him? When It/He starts chipping in to make our lives a little easier I'll have some use for It/Him but until then.....

ppp · Dec 28, 2020

SeekingAllTruth said:
My take is a little different, I believe there is a Higher Intelligence out there somewhere but It/He is useless to us down here so why bother with It/Him? When It/He starts chipping in to make our lives a little easier I'll have some use for It/Him but until then.....

Doesn't that make you a deist?

Trailblazer · Dec 28, 2020

SeekingAllTruth said:
When It/He starts chipping in to make our lives a little easier I'll have some use for It/Him but until then.....

It only does that when it sends Messengers in every age, and between times it just sits and waits for us to act upon the messages, kind of lazy by human standards.

9-10ths_Penguin · Dec 28, 2020

PureX said:
Actually, "theism" is a branch of philosophy related to the proposition that "God/gods" exist, and that it's existence effects humanity in some way.

No, theism is not a branch of philosophy.

Edit: have you maybe confused theism with theology?

MikeF · Dec 28, 2020

exchemist said:
Isn't what you describe just Physicalism? Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I don't think it is. Your link defines Physicalism such that everything is physical or supervenes on the physical. For me, since we are recognizing that there is a lot we do not know about the cosmos, we cannot definitively say that everything is physical. For all we may know, dark matter may not be physical in the same way that the matter/energy we are familiar with is. (I don't know anything about dark matter, obviously, just posing a hypothetical). My definition is more open ended. It acknowledges that there is a reality, and that reality is all there is, but makes no assumptions about the full or complete nature or characteristics of reality. It is what it is, and there is a lot we don't know.

I would agree that Physicalism may fit with our current understanding of the cosmos, but I don't think the definition of Physicalism is an exact match for my proposed definition.

MikeF · Dec 28, 2020

Straw Dog said:
Yikes! I didn’t realize we were obligated to identify exclusively with such limited labels. Um... uh... you kind of just put me on the spot there.

Typically, I enjoy entertaining possibilities without identifying until something becomes viable enough to act upon. I didn’t realize I had to bear the weight of a defined paradigm upon my shoulders. Are we meant to be that inflexible?

No. Not suggesting any limits on how many definitions and associated labels you would like to apply to yourself. The hypothesis is simply asking, can the words we use convey some type of bias that has a psychological effect on those using the biased words. Can one redefine in a way to mitigate the effect of bias.

No obligations or exclusivity implied.

Guitar's Cry · Dec 28, 2020

MikeF said:
I know this will be hard to sell, but I'm going to try.

From our earliest Paleolithic ancestors, the unknown has always been framed under a paradigm in which the presumption has been there is a sentience, a mover, behind observations humans have been unable to explain. From questions about how rivers and wind flow, to how all this began and why, mankind has always assumed an agent or entities lie veiled and unseen behind these questions.

With Theism as the overwhelming dominant paradigm for millennia, those who began to question the assumption of the paradigm were labeled and defined by this paradigm as being in opposition to it. Atheism is not a positive belief statement, but rather a negative statement about the broad Theistic paradigm that has dominated human history and culture since the beginning.

Those labeled as Atheists, by allowing themselves to be defined in reference to a paradigm they don't believe or agree with, actually work against their interests. Arguing against Theism within the theistic paradigm only provides confirmation bias to the Theist that there is something there to argue against. It is almost self-defeating to argue within the theistic paradigm. It is time to reset the paradigm. A new paradigm is required in which one doesn't begin with a presumption or imagined answer to how this all began and why, but rather, a paradigm that simply starts with what is known, however little that may be.

This is why I am calling for the abandonment of the term Atheism and its definition (and, really, Agnosticism for that matter). It is time to assert a new paradigm, one that is a positive belief statement centered on reality, or all that is real and existent. This would be a belief that is not set in stone, frozen in time, but rather continually reflects our growing understanding of the cosmos and ourselves. It would be an acknowledgment of our limited understanding of the whole of reality and that there is still much that remains unknown. This paradigm would encourage investigation of the unknown, encourage speculation, creative thought, and hypothesis of the unknown, but maintain a clear boundary between that which is known to be real, and that which is still just imagined.

Now, this “wheel” may have already been invented, in which case I would love to hear it and encourage people to switch. If it has not, then, this new belief statement would require a label and concise definition. If others agree with my assessment, I would love to hear suggestions. A paradigm centered on reality, to me, naturally leads to looking at the word “real” as a root, but “Realityism” is quite awkward, and “Realism” is already taken. In fact, it would almost be best to make up an entirely new word that does not have any of the potential philosophical baggage of any existing words related to this subject. Here is a stab at the definition:

(New Label For Positive Belief Statement): A belief in reality, all that is real and existent; that reality is knowable, and a humble acknowledgment that the totality of reality is not yet known and may never be known.

So, any takers? Anyone ready to abandon the label Atheist?

I would disagree that the "earliest Paleolithic ancestors" were necessarily theists. I am sure there were those that were simply animists or didn't consider consciousness beyond life.

Evangelicalhumanist · Dec 28, 2020

MikeF said:
No. Not suggesting any limits on how many definitions and associated labels you would like to apply to yourself. The hypothesis is simply asking, can the words we use convey some type of bias that has a psychological effect on those using the biased words. Can one redefine in a way to mitigate the effect of bias.

No obligations or exclusivity implied.

Word, labels, acquire the emotional baggage that people attach to them. You can change them as often as you like, but if there is a general dislike in a community for whatever the thing labelled is, the new label will quickly acquire that baggage.

Try doing a little research on just one such "label." In how many ways, since 1900, have we labelled those that today we call "black lives." Words like "negro," "African-American," "colored," and so on. You can change the label from time to time, but if the community is basically racist, the new label will pick up all the negative associations as the last one.

MikeF · Dec 28, 2020

PureX said:
I think we need to differentiate between "knowing", and "truly knowing", here. There is an old parable about some blind men and an elephant. .... They could only surmise a uniquely inaccurate idea of an elephant.

Here is my take on the elephant parable. The blind men are touching an actual elephant. What they feel is real. And if it were six blind scientists, they wouldn't just stand in one spot philosophizing on the divine nature of what they are touching. The blind scientists would organize themselves, begin walking in the same direction around the elephant, exploring as they go, taking notes. When done, they then compare their notes, look for discrepancies, resolve discrepancies, and then hypothesis on what they had learned. Then one gets the idea that they should work in pairs, with one on another's shoulders to reach high up on the elephant and get more data that way. And low and behold, two can touch hands over the top of the elephant so they now have defined the limit of the animal. Few more times around and they have the complete picture.

The difference between the theist and the realist is how they treat the unknown, all that for which we have no data, no information on which to draw a reasoned conclusion. You cannot assume there is a god lurking in the unknown, always just out of reach. As our sphere of understanding has grown, and we throw light on the shadows, no god is ever found. All we find is a deeper understanding of the same reality that all human beings have been experiencing for thousands of years.

PureX said:
But as I have just pointed out, that experience is limited, subjective, and therefor and uniquely inaccurate. So for us to trust in our presumed expectations, is not an act of true knowledge, as you seem to be suggesting. It's an act of faith. It only seems like we're acting on knowledge if we ignore how much we don't actually know, and how inaccurate what we think we know, is.

There are many ways in which we verify that what the individual observes is the same thing that others are observing. Yes, we as individuals are flawed, and fallible. But the expectations are not presumed. The expectations are based on experience. The more experience, the greater the confidence in the observation. This is why we experience fear in new situations. We have no experience with which to judge an outcome. As a result, we may either avoid, or take a chance and risk a bad outcome. But faith does not come in to it. The more experiences we have, the better we are at making reasoned guesses in new and novel situations. If there is not enough information, or the risks seems to high, we will rationally avoid. We do not blindly blunder forward on unsubstantiated faith. (or rather most don't).

The more information we have, the better we are at making good decisions and drawing sound conclusions. This is why we need scientific inquiry and why we must avoid creating artificial constructs of reality to explain the unknow.

And throughout all this, as knowledge has grown, what we have cataloged as reality has remained unshaken. We exist, the animals, plants, and this very earth all still exist as they always have. The only thing that gets upended is the artificial constructs we create to explain the unknow. It is the artificial religious constructs that get torn asunder as our knowledge ever expands into the unknown, throwing light on the shadows and revealing reality.

PureX said:
You are also one of those blind men, after all. And you don't know the elephant any more than they do.

And as my twist on the parable illustrates, not all blind men are equal in the effectiveness of their approach and in the quality of their results.

Call to abandon Atheism

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Pan

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Well-Known Member