Thread: Atheism

There has been discussion about 3 of the "Historical Religions" so here, will be a thread discussing Atheism: prominent atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins), Atheist research, the history of Atheism, etc.

I'll add more soon.

Feel free to add any thinkers, writers, publications, and/or arguments of atheism.

I must say that Richard Dawkins does seem to be much of an apologist for his belief system, conveniently called 'Atheism'.

This was clear in recent interviews on 'Hard-Talk BBC' & another 'BBC religion' program. He did not come across well at all & appeared to have a large chip on his shoulders.

Perhaps you could define the words - 'athiest', 'athiesm', 'agnostic'?

We could then dissect & explore the concepts further. Would these have any link to 'humanism'?

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

There is no difference between a person who believes in God and one who doesn't.

The different is that one believes, the other doesn't.

Each has taken a firm position on what they believe, yet, neither can offer proof to support their position.

There is quite a range of positions within atheism, ranging from the simple absence of belief to a determined negating of the existence of god. There also are philosophies which concern the supernatural within the field of atheism, Buddhism could be said to be such.

To me, the only intelectually honest person is the agnostic.
They admit that they don't know whether there is a God, or not.

Agnosticism is a valid position, and it gels well with rational thought, but intellectual inquiry for proof is not the one and only method of verification when it comes to matters of belief.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

There is no difference between a person who believes in God and one who doesn't.
Each has taken a firm position on what they believe, yet, neither can offer proof to support their position.
To me, the only intelectually honest person is the agnostic.
They admit that they don't know whether there is a God, or not.

Agreed, the wisdom of believing or disbelieving is in itself questionable. While belief implies an act of faith, which may or may not be warranted; people are often prepared to kill, or sacrifice, or even commit suicide, in the name of belief. Yet disbelief is a reverse form of belief...to deny belief in gods, ghosts, flying saucers or astrology is as much an act of faith as believing in them.


Thank God for agnostics!

Originally Posted by watterinja

We could then dissect & explore the concepts further. Would these have any link to 'humanism'?

If you'd want them to. There is "Atheistic Humanism".

I agree definitions are needed. I'll leave that to the thread-starter for now.

Originally Posted by keda

Yet disbelief is a reverse form of belief...to deny belief in gods, ghosts, flying saucers or astrology is as much an act of faith as believing in them.

Not really, but this is a common misconception. There are those who simply do not concern themselves with beliefs, this does not require an act of faith.
I don't care about Wotan, Shiva or Allah, no 'faith' involved at all on my part.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Each has taken a firm position on what they believe, yet, neither can offer proof to support their position.

This isn't how I see it at all.

..and I'm an Atheist.

There seem to be an awful lot of people who believe in Santa Claus. Oops, sorry, Jesus Christ. Up to them, but don't drag me into the fairy story. We are born, we exist for three score years and ten, then we die. Our bodies rot and that is the end of it. If you want proof look in a mirror and at a cemetary.

Why the heck should I have to prove anything beyond what I see?

If someone wants to believe otherwise that is their prerogative, but don't go making up fairy stories and asking me to disprove them.

I'm probably an Agnostic, not an atheist. But then again, sometimes I pray to God to help me. And...I have been known to meditate to Buddha on occasion.

What am I? I'm not sure. I was raised a staunch Catholic, so I guess I'm totally screwed up.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

There is no difference between a person who believes in God and one who doesn't.
Each has taken a firm position on what they believe, yet, neither can offer proof to support their position.

I also don't believe that Slarty Bartfast was one of the designers who constructed the world for a race of mice who wanted to experiment on human beings.

I can't prove it though.

It doesn't mean that there's no difference between me and somebody that does believe it.

(I could understand someone believing that there's not much difference between somebody that reads the HHGTTG and believes it and somebody that reads the Bible/Qaran/Tora and believes it)

Obviously, I didn't explain my point clearly enough.
The reason why a believer and a non-believer are the same, is because they have taken a definite position. Each one believes they are right and the other is wrong.
The Agnostic is different to both because they have not taken a firm position. They say they don't know. They are open to both ideas, the believer and non-believer are not.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by watterinja

We could then dissect & explore the concepts further. Would these have any link to 'humanism'?

If you'd want them to. There is "Atheistic Humanism".

I agree definitions are needed. I'll leave that to the thread-starter for now.

Originally Posted by keda

Yet disbelief is a reverse form of belief...to deny belief in gods, ghosts, flying saucers or astrology is as much an act of faith as believing in them.

Not really, but this is a common misconception. There are those who simply do not concern themselves with beliefs, this does not require an act of faith.
I don't care about Wotan, Shiva or Allah, no 'faith' involved at all on my part.

Hmm, not quite sure you read what I posted or where the 'common misconception' lies, unless you believe denial is another word for disinterest...try again?

Originally Posted by benbaaa

...But it's much more difficult to to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove it does exist. I don't see why there is any burden of the disproof of God on atheists (like me). We aren't asserting the existence of anything, we are merely saying we prefer alternative explanations for the universe. If atheists are happy with the evidence that the big bang, for example, was responsible for the creation of matter in the universe, why do we need to go further and "disprove" the existence of a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud as an explanation?

Despite the evidence which points to the big bang, I personally find the theory very difficult to get my head around. I'm looking forward to someone coming up with a more convincing theory, but in the meantime that doesn't mean I have to go running for "spiritual" explanations which have no evidence to support them.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in the existence of God. I also don't believe in Santa Clause or tooth fairies, but that doesn't mean I have to scour the earth trying to prove they don't exist. I have a more satisfying theory for the appearance of Christmas presents and sixpences under my pillow: my mum and dad.

Nothing at all wrong with being an atheist that isn't overwhelmed by a need to demonstrate what to many is an irrational belief in any of the hundreds of thousands of god contenders.

Though I believe in the BB whilst unable to offer a plausible explanation for what if anything existed before, I have heard persuasive pro-BB arguments by fervent godsquadies who first agree that it certainly looks like the cause of existence, and then invariably fall back on the crutch of blind faith by claiming it was a god, usually of some Biblical variety, that caused it to happen.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

There is no difference between a person who believes in God and one who doesn't.
Each has taken a firm position on what they believe, yet, neither can offer proof to support their position.
To me, the only intelectually honest person is the agnostic.
They admit that they don't know whether there is a God, or not.

Thomas Aquinas defended human reason as a
source of knowledge of the natural world, and attempted
to reconcile faith and reason by setting down five
irrefutable proofs of the existence of God.

The first argument for the existence of God
maintains that the concept of our Creator as perfect
entails that He be regarded as existing,
since otherwise He could not be perfect.

The second argument for the Existence of God
proposes that any reality must have a necessary cause,
and this should be identified as the Creator.

The third argument for the Existence of God
reasons from evidence of design and purpose in the
world to its having an intelligent Creator.

The fourth argument for the Existence of God
asserts that moral obligation is understood
only when it points to God as the sole
source of moral justification.

The fifth argument for the Existence of God
holds that His reality is so self-evident
that it cannot reasonably be doubted.


Just as well he was a bigshot and beyond reproach, because not one of these arguments would survive scrutiny in the modern era.

Originally Posted by chinthee

I'm probably an Agnostic, not an atheist. But then again, sometimes I pray to God to help me. ...

Though we may not own a belief in evil spirits, many people consider it a pity to receive harm from neglecting so easy a precaution as invoking a name or hanging up an old horseshoe.

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by keda

Yet disbelief is a reverse form of belief...to deny belief in gods, ghosts, flying saucers or astrology is as much an act of faith as believing in them.

Not really, but this is a common misconception. There are those who simply do not concern themselves with beliefs, this does not require an act of faith.
I don't care about Wotan, Shiva or Allah, no 'faith' involved at all on my part.

Hmm, not quite sure you read what I posted or where the 'common misconception' lies, unless you believe denial is another word for disinterest...try again?

Hmm, not quite sure you read what I posted, but ok, let me put it differently: By definition it is a belief which requires faith, dis-belief therefore indicates the absence of faith.

There is a difference between denying a belief and not believing = disbelief. No faith is required for not believing. An active denial however, can take forms similar to faith, I sort of agree with SB and yourself there.

What are the odds of life as we know it, beginning, by chance?

What are the odds of life as we know it, being sustained, by chance?

What if life, as we know it, was designed & created by an Intelligent Designer, as a part of a Master plan?

How would you refute these statements/questions?

^ Really?

^
Well some of us are outgrowing it.

Frankly I don't care if some people want to believe in the existence of a gigantic supremely intelligent rabbit. It seems conceited, to me, for us humans to consider we were created in he image of "The Creator". Each to his own I suppose.

I see it a little more simply than that. I see no need for arrogance to believe that we & the universe were created. A species created in the image of a Creator remain - a created species - living within a confined paradigm.

Life & our surrounds are simply a test, the outcome of which determines where we end up in the future. Simple concept really.

Originally Posted by watterinja

What are the odds of life as we know it, beginning, by chance?

What are the odds of life as we know it, being sustained, by chance?

As Thormaturge stated already, chances are quite high, following our insights into the nature of the universe through science.

What if life, as we know it, was designed & created by an Intelligent Designer, as a part of a Master plan?

How would you refute these statements/questions?

This is where I differ with Thorm, yes, life as we know it may be part of some "master plan", or, in other words, there may be more to it than can be established through scientific investigation.

But this is subject to speculation, or belief.
As an atheist, I do not have faith in the existence of any single one absolute entity, nor do I accept any kind of book to contain the words of such entity.

I'd go further and say that there is no conclusive evidence of god as an absolute, but the belief in god(s) is a concept which does have useful purposes in providing explanations for natural and supernatural occurrences (as in nature religions), provide meaning and guidance, but ultimately, it is a delusion. The absolute essence of existence cannot be "god".