PeterMP Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Yep... it was more about clarifying definitions for me. I thought of myself as an agnostic because i assumed that atheism is by definition necessarily assertive. But you are making an assertion: It is, indeed, almost certain that God does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 "Oh…hang on. There is no God. He knows it, and she knows it deep down. It was as simple as that. I started thinking about it and asking more questions, and within an hour, I was an atheist." I'm not Ricky Gervais. But to his point, he described becoming a gnostic atheist with regard to the belief system of his family. If you define atheism as a negation of belief in god, would you consider yourself holding a negated view of the correctness of ALL the thousands of religions in the world, except your Roman Catholicism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 If you define atheism as a negation of belief in god, would you consider yourself holding a negated view of the correctness of ALL the thousands of religions in the world, except your Roman Catholicism? It's an interesting situation. As a Christian, the fact that I hold this set of beliefs to be true gives me, in and of itself, a good reason to reject all other competing truth claims. Part of what I hold to be true is that the others are not true. If I feel I have good reason to believe Christianity, I also have good reason to reject, say, Hinduism. The atheist, on the other hand, at least in theory must examine each competing truth claim if he wants to be a strong atheist (to use another term). In practice, of course, it's fairly easy to wave one's hand and declare it all hooey and superstition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 This is exactly my point. Rather than telling people for certain God does exist, I tell people I have faith he does exist. But when people say he doesn't exist, they can't be sure. They are just using faith to believe he doesn't because like you said it can't be said with certainty. This is indeed true, we've both taken leaps of faith. The only thing I can safely say in all certainty that I know, it's that I don't know. Some folks are content with the supreme being the answer to what they don't know. To me, it's too implausible. I couldnt convince myself of that if I tried, and believe me i have. One thing about being an atheist is that you're very different from most people you grew up with and their upbringing. My friends were catholic, I've been to church hundreds of times. My grandfather was a lay-minister, and from what my sister tells me, my father is now as well. I did Sunday school when i was a kid.. all that. When you're a kid, those threats of hell are scary.. revelations scared me more than any horror movie.. so I tried to convince myself, even told myself it was true for a while there. It just didn't work. Down deep I knew I didn't believe it. It's just too implausible. So, I'm comfortable in knowing that I don't know. .Now.. for a left turn here... let me throw this into the mix. People seem to believe more and more of the possibility that we were deposited here and that the spark of life that made us came from elsewhere in the universe. Some think the various chemicals and elements necessary arrived in space debris and planted the seeds for life. Others take it a step further in that we were planted here by an alien race, either purposely or not. Let's pretend for a second that is true. Does that change our concept of God? Does this alien species then become God the Creator? Technically it would be true.. but what of their Creator? What if it turned out that we're the result of an alien species "seeding' the galaxy, or more.., and the species who left us here are / were as flawed as we are? I don't believe in this theory, just figured I'd float it out since we're talking about things fantastic. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The atheist, on the other hand, at least in theory must examine each competing truth claim if he wants to be a strong atheist (to use another term). Who is this "strong atheist"? To use another analogy, someone could be very comfortable being bald and feel it is their natural state. Now to make the strong claim that a shiny dome is unequivocally the best look for them, would require then to try every possible hairstyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandymac27 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The more I study, read, listen to people, etc, the more I believe that there is just no possible way of knowing with 100% certainty that God exists. I have basically come full circle, a complete 360, and am right back in the same place I started- agnosticism. For me, religion, philosophy, and even science don't bring me any closer to some divine revelation or proof of Gods existence. I have basically become comfortable in knowing that there are some things that I will never have the answer to (at least not until I'm dead, and maybe not even then). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 My belief is that most of Dawkins' total arguments are ultimately unfulfilling. Partly, the issue is that here interweaves multiple interconnected ideas... Peter, this entire post was very helpful. Thank you for taking the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I like the Godless, because of them I won't have to deal with SRO conditions up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 It seems to me like Gervais is using a lot of the same sorts of spiritual rhetoric that religious people use when he talks about atheism and what it means to him. It comes off like an emotional argument. That's fine I guess, but I think it's kind of unnecessary to arguing an atheist ideology where faith in a deity is replaced by faith in the scientific method. I used to think of myself as aggressively atheist and was intellectually contemptuous of people who followed a major religion. I didn't see what the good reason was for doing so. I saw only potential harm in accepting dogma and letting it define your world view. Now I just don't care enough one way or the other to mount a strong opinion on the subject. I feel like I've come to accept I will always be in doubt about most things in the world. One thing I do know is that an atheist philosophy doesn't provide much comfort when you experience a devastating loss. I personally find that shared spirituality helps so much more in those kinds of times when we need to cope with our own mortality and those of the people we love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Who is this "strong atheist"? Some, in order to deal with the definitional issues arising in this thread, distinguish between "strong atheism", an actual denial of the existence of a god or gods, and "weak atheism", which is more like what you propose, a lack of belief in a god or gods. Some even parse it finer, claiming for instance to be a strong atheist in the case of Mormonism, for example, and a weak atheist generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 His claim is, “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe,”How does the sun stay exactly the right distance from us, without getting too close or too far away? How does the moon circle us perfectly so as to reflect the sun at night? The water come to us as we need it, the foods that we need to nourish us exist all over, etc. Something as complicated as our circulatory system clearly has a design. If there is a design, there must be a designer. That is not to say an atheist isn't allowed to believe what he wants. I personally think the evidence weighs heavily in the believer's favor, though. I love Ricky Gervais, and God loves Ricky Gervais whether he believes it or not. The sun doesn't gobble us up or move away because of the principles of gravity. In time, the orbit will eventually decay and the sun will eventually explode. The moon also orbits because of the principles of gravity, but it does not "circle us perfectly" as its orbit is elliptical. Water does not "come to us as we need it". We designed a complicated irrigation and plumbing system to provide us with water as we need it. There are 3rd world countries out there that don't have reliable, clean drinking water. They don't have food to nourish them. Claiming something clearly has a design does not in fact make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I'm not Ricky Gervais. But to his point, he described becoming a gnostic atheist with regard to the belief system of his family. If you define atheism as a negation of belief in god, would you consider yourself holding a negated view of the correctness of ALL the thousands of religions in the world, except your Roman Catholicism? No, but Ricky Gervais is using the word in a manner that the vast majority of the English speaking population understands the word. And no, but that is the view of the Catholic Church and I'm normally pretty quick to point out that I have issues with the Catholic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 ATHEIST a person who is unfortunately a member of the EAT S... minority. or ATHEIST DOGMA where to not believe in or Love God you need to embrace the I HATE GOD mindset. it's not me blame the anagrams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 That's fine I guess, but I think it's kind of unnecessary to arguing an atheist ideology where faith in a deity is replaced by faith in the scientific method. I don't think it's an active ideology per se - more just an absence of a religious ideology. My guess would be that most atheists aren't "aggresively atheist" as you put it. It only sounds like an active ideology when someone (e.g., Gervais) attempts to explain his rationale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 How?By what mechanism do you control the system? You can't control the system by deciding something if the mechanism by which you are deciding things is the system. Control arises through an interplay between subsystems, memory, sensory data, and so on. You are working from the definition - "control" is this and that, now let's look at the brain to see if it has "control". I am pointing at specific examples of our ability to direct the flow of our mental processes, and calling that "control". Think of a butterfly. You just exercised what I call "control" over your brain. Obviously the thing I am talking about exists. Whether that constitutes "control" or "free will" is a very messy, and in my view largely meaningless, philosophical question. A more meaningful question would be, how much "control" do we have over our brains? And the answer is, quite a bit. ---------- Post added January-19th-2011 at 01:15 PM ---------- But you are making an assertion: I understand why you think that. To me, however, it is a logical conclusion that is based on available information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Some, in order to deal with the definitional issues arising in this thread, distinguish between "strong atheism", an actual denial of the existence of a god or gods, and "weak atheism", which is more like what you propose, a lack of belief in a god or gods. So in your lexicon .. Gnostic atheism = strong atheism Agnostic atheism = weak atheism Gnostic Christianity = Evangelical Baptist Agnostic Christianity = Methodism. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Here's another leap of logic regarding religion. Assume there is an all powerful being who created the universe and all that is in it... not to be an ingrate or anything, but would this all powerful creator really care - much less require - that we gather in a building once a week and declare our belief in him? Can someone have faith that God exists without adhering to a specific religion and without being damned to hell for not following the tenets of that religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Ricky G.: "I don't believe in God because I have a flawed epistemological construct." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homercles82 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Here's another leap of logic regarding religion. Assume there is an all powerful being who created the universe and all that is in it... not to be an ingrate or anything, but would this all powerful creator really care - much less require - that we gather in a building once a week and declare our belief in him? Can someone have faith that God exists without adhering to a specific religion and without being damned to hell for not following the tenets of that religion? The Bible calls us to gather to worship. A church is supposed to be an integral part of the community though outreach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I don't think it's an active ideology per se - more just an absence of a religious ideology. My guess would be that most atheists aren't "aggresively atheist" as you put it. It only sounds like an active ideology when someone (e.g., Gervais) attempts to explain his rationale. I remember reading some sort of Nietzsche passage in my little freshman Nietszche/Marx/Freud class as an unenlightened 18 year old and being struck when he talked about faith in science as using equivalent logic to faith in religion. Believing the theory of evolution, as Gervais uses in his example, involves some act of faith so I do think atheism based on a faith in science is an active ideology. He places utter faith in the fact that the contemporary science is accurate and he lives his life according to those beliefs. It's a sort of faith that allows itself to be updated following new discoveries. But I think scientific revolutions have been contentious on a smaller scale like religious schisms and all of that (maybe not all the killing, but there is intellectual warfare). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 ATHEIST a person who is unfortunately a member of the EAT S... minority.or ATHEIST DOGMA where to not believe in or Love God you need to embrace the I HATE GOD mindset. Shame on you, ND. Even you are better than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The more I study, read, listen to people, etc, the more I believe that there is just no possible way of knowing with 100% certainty that God exists. I have basically come full circle, a complete 360, and am right back in the same place I started- agnosticism.For me, religion, philosophy, and even science don't bring me any closer to some divine revelation or proof of Gods existence. I have basically become comfortable in knowing that there are some things that I will never have the answer to (at least not until I'm dead, and maybe not even then). Closest for me. I don't know what's out there, if anything. It's hard to get around the "what about before the big bang?" question. But if there is anything after this, I'm pretty sure it's not a light place in the clouds with all my dead friends, relatives and pets. Having faith would be great, but it's just not me. Going through the motions, I think, would be the bigger affront. If there is a God to judge us, the one sin he should forgive is being too dumb to know which god, if any, is the right one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Control arises through an interplay between subsystems, memory, sensory data, and so on.You are working from the definition - "control" is this and that, now let's look at the brain to see if it has "control". I am pointing at specific examples of our ability to direct the flow of our mental processes, and calling that "control". Think of a butterfly. You just exercised what I call "control" over your brain. Obviously the thing I am talking about exists. Whether that constitutes "control" or "free will" is a very messy, and in my view largely meaningless, philosophical question. A more meaningful question would be, how much "control" do we have over our brains? And the answer is, quite a bit. ---------- Post added January-19th-2011 at 01:15 PM ---------- I understand why you think that. To me, however, it is a logical conclusion that is based on available information. 1. The question isn't control or free will. The question is it control that is independent of evolution and stochastic processes. If it is, then you should be able to describe a mechanism independent of those things, but the things you are describing aren't independent of those things. 2. Sure. But that's an assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 So in your lexicon .. Well, it's not my lexicon, but... Agnostic Christianity = Methodism. Q: How do Unitarians begin their prayers? A: "To whom it may concern" Can someone have faith that God exists without adhering to a specific religion and without being damned to hell for not following the tenets of that religion? It's a coherent concept, in that it's not obviously self-refuting or flawed, but it ultimately comes down to whether or not those hell damning religions happen to be correct. If no, then yes. If yes, then no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I have to admit, I'm having a hard time believing he really said that. I don't want to be putting words in his mouth. He said a reasonably good argument could be made for such a god, but not one that he wouldn't personally prescribe to such an argument (though I'm not sure what sense a reasonably good argument that you wouldn't prescribe to is as a person that is pushing logic). The comment is at about the 3:30 mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.