what atheism teaches us

[ThePainefulTruth]

atheism teaches us to see things as they are and not as we want them to be. atheism is the greatest tool when we want to examine facts apart from imagination. we all should have an atheistic mind to some degree, because it might help us to see things from a different point of view other than a religious one. maybe atheism will help us understand religions better.

Agnosticism teaches us to see things as they are, and for what we can't see, to say "I don't know". Atheism is a declaration that God doesn't exist. Everyone, on the issue of God, should be a hyphenated agnostic first. I am an agnostic deist. Most revealed religion don't allow for an agnostic qualifier. If there is doubt, you cannot be certain, via faith or whatever.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm hard pressed to think of anywhere where markets aren't regulated, usually in a number of ways. In the US, for example, think of agricultural subsidies, bank bailouts, stock market oversight, import restrictions, goods that can't be bought without a license, and so on.

oooh! oooh! <raises hand>

The illegal drug trade in the US, is one such market--- absolutely unregulated, and only restricted in that it's illegal, and under the table.

But other than that, it's 100% unregulated, untaxed, no oversight, etc.

It's a beautiful example of pure Capitalism too. And like all other forms? If not restricted, it quickly trends to a monopoly.

Obviously, in the illegal drug trade, this is done via violence and murder of any competition.

Not ironically, this mirrors the "legal" capitalism more often than not...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Atheism is a declaration that God doesn't exist.

Not really. Atheism is simply a rejection of god-claims. There is no active declaration as you state, here.

 

[blü 2]

oooh! oooh! <raises hand>

The illegal drug trade in the US, is one such market--- absolutely unregulated, and only restricted in that it's illegal, and under the table.

But other than that, it's 100% unregulated, untaxed, no oversight, etc.

It's a beautiful example of pure Capitalism too. And like all other forms? If not restricted, it quickly trends to a monopoly.

Obviously, in the illegal drug trade, this is done via violence and murder of any competition.

Not ironically, this mirrors the "legal" capitalism more often than not...

You're right. I should have referred to markets that are regulated or supposed at law to be regulated.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You're right. I should have referred to markets that are regulated or supposed at law to be regulated.

Thank you sir. I did not mean to denigrate your comment, it's just that many folk forget that capitalism can be legal and above-board, and illegal (the so-called black markets).

I remember the old USSR, where capitalism was a "bad word" in their society---yet it thrived even in the semi-open. Not ironically, one of the principle mediums of exchange was US dollars. Of course, it was a serious crime in the USSR to even possess US money, but people did it anyway.

One of the more amusing (to me, in hindsight) economies during those days, was US bluejeans. Any brand made in the US would do, Levis being the Gold Standard, but the other US brands were also coveted.

It was said, that if you ever had a chance to visit the USSR, buy several pairs of Levis. Used is okay. Wear them one pair over the other (because if you had them in your luggage, they would vanish "mysteriously" in customs. You could sell them for a nice sum---just don't get caught. You can even specify as part of your payment (in US dollars, naturally) some Russian jeans. They were very poorly made, but they were a kind of cool curiosity here in the States. You could resell those too.

Of course, the USSR collapsed of it's own weight. It's "real" economy was very weird and fixed. Supposedly.

 

[blü 2]

One of the more amusing (to me, in hindsight) economies during those days, was US bluejeans. Any brand made in the US would do, Levis being the Gold Standard, but the other US brands were also coveted.

Remind me to buy you a coffee one day so I can hear the rest of this memoir.

Of course, the USSR collapsed of it's own weight. It's "real" economy was very weird and fixed. Supposedly.

The command economy worked remarkably well during WW2 if you don't expect any attention to humans as such. I think the future will see the return of the command economy in the form of fully automated factories and the like, owned by the state to produce / process consumer goods, with no whining about payrates, hours or the tedium. As in the USSR but openly, free markets would run in parallel.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Not really. Atheism is simply a rejection of god-claims. There is no active declaration as you state, here.

You're quibbling. Rejection is just the negative form of declaration. They're both positions on the existence of God. Then you can modify those with you're degree of certainty.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You're quibbling. Rejection is just the negative form of declaration. They're both positions on the existence of God. Then you can modify those with you're degree of certainty.

Quibbling? I think not. Your mischaracterization of 'atheism' requires faith.

Mine is free from such anti-reason activities.

Moreover, rejection of god-claims is very different from faith in them. It's passive. It's simply asking "prove it" to statements made without evidence.

In fact, the default position is atheism. If nobody ever tells someone about gods? That someone will never be fooled by those things.

The fact that people only believe in god, after someone tells them about gods? Is pretty good proof there are no such things as gods in the first place.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The fact that people only believe in god, after someone tells them about gods? Is pretty good proof there are no such things as gods in the first place.

People have been believing in God (and being exploited by the priests and shamans) since we first became self aware and wondered what happens to us when we die.

And the question is really not "Does God exist", it's how did the universe come to be. That question has brought several famous formerly hard atheists into the agnostic camp.

Richard Dawkins
"You could possibly persuade me that there was some kind of creative force in the universe, there was some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything…the expanding universe, devised quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You can possibly persuade me of that."


Lawrence Krauss
“I actually think deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be, I mean the Universe is an amazing place."

"So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."



Victor Stenger
“In short, the world looks just like it should look if there is no God with these attributes. True that this does not rule out other gods, such a deist god that does not act in the universe. But we can rule out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God to a high degree of probability.”
_________________________________________________________________
And there's a good reason that God would set it up so he (It) would not be apparent. Can you imagine what that is? Hint, it's the sole reason for creating a natural, rational (un-mystical) universe in the first place--which explains a lot else besides, like, why do bad things happen to good people and vice vesa, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agnosticism teaches us to see things as they are, and for what we can't see, to say "I don't know". Atheism is a declaration that God doesn't exist. Everyone, on the issue of God, should be a hyphenated agnostic first. I am an agnostic deist. Most revealed religion don't allow for an agnostic qualifier. If there is doubt, you cannot be certain, via faith or whatever.

It is amazing that theists cannot understand the concept that atheism is not a declaration that god does not exist. It is simply a lack of a belief in a god. Theism is a big tent that covers everything from deism to YEC Christianity. It is simply a belief in a god. Now you are a self acknowledged agnostic deist. Meaning you do not know but you believe that it is likely that there is a god. I am an agnostic atheist, as are most atheists on this forum. I do not believe in a god or gods but show me some valid evidence and I can be convinced. Most of the YEC's here will not change their mind no matter what evidence is given to them.

But I do agree that most should be an agnostic of some sort. People who claim to "know" are usually the easiest to prove to be wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're quibbling. Rejection is just the negative form of declaration. They're both positions on the existence of God. Then you can modify those with you're degree of certainty.

Nope. The distinction is significant.

All the more so because "god" is such a vague term. We really ought to promote awareness of apatheism and ignosticism.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

People have been believing in God (and being exploited by the priests and shamans) since we first became self aware and wondered what happens to us when we die.

And the question is really not "Does God exist", it's how did the universe come to be. That question has brought several famous formerly hard atheists into the agnostic camp.

Richard Dawkins
"You could possibly persuade me that there was some kind of creative force in the universe, there was some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything…the expanding universe, devised quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You can possibly persuade me of that."


Lawrence Krauss
“I actually think deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be, I mean the Universe is an amazing place."

"So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."



Victor Stenger
“In short, the world looks just like it should look if there is no God with these attributes. True that this does not rule out other gods, such a deist god that does not act in the universe. But we can rule out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God to a high degree of probability.”
_________________________________________________________________
And there's a good reason that God would set it up so he (It) would not be apparent. Can you imagine what that is? Hint, it's the sole reason for creating a natural, rational (un-mystical) universe in the first place--which explains a lot else besides, like, why do bad things happen to good people and vice vesa, etc.

Argument from Authority, without evidence pretty effectively describes your quotes, above.

And 100% ignores my point: the fact that someone must tell a person about god, before said person believes in god, is a giant Elephant In The Room. And not in a good way.

As to your final argument? "And there's a good reason that God would set it up so he (It) would not be apparent. "

That one does not fly at all--- any "good reason" can only be Ethical, if there are zero consequences if one believes or does not believe--- you must have identical outcomes, or it's patently Unfair.

If a 2 year old human has an instinctive grasp of "fair", then I would think the Ultimate Creator (who is billed as both good and ethical) would not fall into such a trap.

Of course, the Ultimate Creator may be a rat b*stard in the end. Such a creature could well deliberately obfuscate it's interference, because of being an evil being.

I think that last is unlikely, due to observable Good in the world. But I may be biased, here--- my perception of what constitutes "good" may not be very objective.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Argument from Authority, without evidence pretty effectively describes your quotes, above.

Are you saying I don't have evidence or are you just being coy.

As to your final argument? "And there's a good reason that God would set it up so he (It) would not be apparent. "

That one does not fly at all--- any "good reason" can only be Ethical, if there are zero consequences if one believes or does not believe--- you must have identical outcomes, or it's patently Unfair.

Hint, think free will.

If a 2 year old human has an instinctive grasp of "fair", then I would think the Ultimate Creator (who is billed as both good and ethical) would not fall into such a trap.

What has fairness got to do with anything?

Of course, the Ultimate Creator may be a rat b*stard in the end. Such a creature could well deliberately obfuscate it's interference, because of being an evil being.

True, if a creator set things up with false evidence that It didn't exist, it would be a lie, and any true God must be the embodiment of Truth.

I think that last is unlikely, due to observable Good in the world. But I may be biased, here--- my perception of what constitutes "good" may not be very objective.

But also biased against the possibility of the existence of ANY God. The Truth is, there is objective morality, but it's much simpler than the behemoth which the many codes of conduct the various religions have smothered it with in their zeal for control.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Are you saying I don't have evidence or are you just being coy.

I did not want to come right out and say that, but yeah.... you don't.

Hint, think free will.

That simply does not fly, not even a little. I gave an excellent example why, which I notice you simply ignored. Hmmmm.

But free will has nothing to do with a Failure To Accept Responsibility.

As the Ultimate Creator of Everything, that means all Evil is also the responsibility of this Creator.

Or else? Said Creator isn't powerful or isn't good or both.

What has fairness got to do with anything?

Everything. I'm sorry that you even had to ask.... if a god is Not Fair?

Then? The god is also Immoral. Which is rather a Bad Thing.

True, if a creator set things up with false evidence that It didn't exist, it would be a lie, and any true God must be the embodiment of Truth.

Indeed. Thus if there was a god of Earth, then it is Evil, for a failure to be Obvious.

But also biased against the possibility of the existence of ANY God. The Truth is, there is objective morality, but it's much simpler than the behemoth which the many codes of conduct the various religions have smothered it with in their zeal for control.

What? I'm so sorry, but your final paragraph remains without meaning to me-- I simply cannot parse out your meaning or message.

Mea culpa. *sigh*

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I did not want to come right out and say that, but yeah.... you don't.

The evidence is the universe, which reasonable people, including those former hard atheists who are honest enough to admit it, understand that it contains no evidence about how it came to be, God of no God. Even Hawking had to finally back down (kicking and screaming) from his "proof" from before the Big Bang, that God does not exist.

That simply does not fly, not even a little. I gave an excellent example why, which I notice you simply ignored. Hmmmm.

In your smug assertion, you never even asked.
God, if It exists, didn't create evil. It merely created a universe which would spawn fully self-aware creatures--which self-awareness caused us to be able to discern good and evil and thus have to decide between them. God doesn't intervene, which intervention would cause us to loose our free will. God could have done anything else instantly instead of this 14 billion year natural separation between us and the Big Bang. We thus became the first creatures to loose our innocence, that we know of. It would have been the sole purpose for creation, man without any evidence that God exists and is looking over our shoulder...or not. Man can invent such "knowledge", but it's a lie. We know absolutely nothing about what happened "before".

Everything. I'm sorry that you even had to ask.... if a god is Not Fair?

You're still arguing against theism. if God doesn't intervene at all, how can It make things fair or unfair. There's more Truth in the statement "Life is not fair" than even the non-deists who've said that understand.

Then? The god is also Immoral. Which is rather a Bad Thing.

God's existence is irrelevant to us in this life if there is no interaction in the natural, rational universe. Any claim that God exists or doesn't exist to interact is completely artificial. Neither possibility has the slightest evidence pro or con.
I

ndeed. Thus if there was a god of Earth, then it is Evil, for a failure to be Obvious.

Not if It refrains from interacting and thus skewing our moral choices.

What? I'm so sorry, but your final paragraph remains without meaning to me-- I simply cannot parse out your meaning or message.

Mea culpa. *sigh*

Until you understand God's non-intervention and the importance of that in relation to our free will, you can't understand. You're still arguing against theism. But because our situation requires living with doubt, many (most?) theists and atheists simply put that uncertainty out-of-mind. There is no rational position on how the universe came to be that doesn't require an agnostic approach.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is the universe, which reasonable people, including those former hard atheists who are honest enough to admit it, understand that it contains no evidence about how it came to be, God of no God. Even Hawking had to finally back down (kicking and screaming) from his "proof" from before the Big Bang, that God does not exist.

Where did Hawking ever claim that? You do not seem to understand that the burden of proof is upon theists. A rational person does not believe in something without evidence. Where is the supposed evidence for a god? Until some is presented atheism, a lack of belief, is the way to go.

In your smug assertion, you never even asked.
God, if It exists, didn't create evil. It merely created a universe which would spawn fully self-aware creatures--which self-awareness caused us to be able to discern good and evil and thus have to decide between them. God doesn't intervene, which intervention would cause us to loose our free will. God could have done anything else instantly instead of this 14 billion year natural separation between us and the Big Bang. We thus became the first creatures to loose our innocence, that we know of. It would have been the sole purpose for creation, man without any evidence that God exists and is looking over our shoulder...or not. Man can invent such "knowledge", but it's a lie. We know absolutely nothing about what happened "before".

So God is merely incompetent according to you. That is nice to know. By the way, how did we "loose<sic> our innocence"?

You're still arguing against theism. if God doesn't intervene at all, how can It make things fair or unfair. There's more Truth in the statement "Life is not fair" than even the non-deists who've said that understand.

I forgot that you were a deist, though your claim about losing our innocence indicates that may not be the case. So once again, what is the evidence for a god?

God's existence is irrelevant to us in this life if there is no interaction in the natural, rational universe. Any claim that God exists or doesn't exist to interact is completely artificial. Neither possibility has the slightest evidence pro or con.

So why even claim that such a god exists?

Not if It refrains from interacting and thus skewing our moral choices.

He is arguing against the "God" of the Bible and other religions such as Islam etc.. Most of those have an evil God, if you are a deist you should be agreeing with his statements.

Until you understand God's non-intervention and the importance of that in relation to our free will, you can't understand. You're still arguing against theism. But because our situation requires living with doubt, many (most?) theists and atheists simply put that uncertainty out-of-mind. There is no rational position on how the universe came to be that doesn't require an agnostic approach.

Deism is under the big tent of theism. You might want to work on your terminology. And you appear to have a false understanding of atheism. Until evidence is found the rational position on how the universe came to be is an atheistic one. To steal an argument from Matt Dillahunty, would you believe in a universe created by "galaxy farting pixies" without evidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

But free will has nothing to do with a Failure To Accept Responsibility.

As the Ultimate Creator of Everything, that means all Evil is also the responsibility of this Creator.

Or else? Said Creator isn't powerful or isn't good or both.

That is a non sequitur. Just because God is the Creator of Everything does not mean that God is responsible for everything. God created man with free will because otherwise man could not "do" anything. Because man has free will man is responsible for his moral choices. So free will has everything to do with man accepting responsibility.

God is not responsible to prevent Evil just because God is All-Powerful and can prevent Evil. Being All-Powerful also implies that God can choose not to do anything God does not want to do, so that means God can choose not to prevent Evil or be Obvious.

Indeed. Thus if there was a god of Earth, then it is Evil, for a failure to be Obvious.

Why is God Evil just because God is not Obvious? Why should God be Obvious?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The evidence is the universe, which reasonable people, including those former hard atheists who are honest enough to admit it, understand that it contains no evidence about how it came to be, God of no God.

I am not a theist. You are operating on a Failure To Communicate Mode, here.

Go back and re-read my post-- I am arguing against the idea that gods created the universe.

And Hawking never did advocate for a god-- "kicking and screaming"? Really?

A bit disingenuous of you, mate!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That is a non sequitur. Just because God is the Creator of Everything does not mean that God is responsible for everything.

Absolutely false.

Unless you accept that this god of yours is most definitely not omni-powerful and also not omni-knowing?

And is also NOT capable of doing anything to interfere?

Why call such a powerless being "god"?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Until you understand God's non-intervention and the importance of that in relation to our free will, you can't understand.

Until you prove that any such being --- god or prime mover or whatever-- exists?

All your arguments about this myth? Fall apart for having no basis in reality.