On Being Atheist...

[amicus]

I have long considered writing this essay and this is as good a place as any to begin.

A stipulative fact: Atheism is not a faith or a belief, by definition, your opinions be damned.

Atheism is a rejection of all faiths and all beliefs; a rational, cognitive quest for understanding the nature of life.

The subject subsumes all other disciplines that deal with human existence, again, by definition, as it is all encompassing.

"What happens when we die; as we all pass on..." "What is the prupose of life if there is no life beyond death, no creator, no giver of purpose and meaning to existence?"

Declaring Atheism demands answers to those questions and many more. What is good and evil, what is right and wrong, what is moral and what is not?

Why does any of it matter if there is no afterlife?

Here is the fundamental foundation upon which all knowledge is based: the ability of the mind of man to perceieve reality.

It is well nigh time, here in the 21st Century, to acknowledge, and then dismiss, the efforts of formal thinkers, Philosophers and Theologians, who have long meditated upon these basic questions of our existence.

A rational person must formally acknowledge that man has only one means of perceiving reality, that which is, through his five senses, and the focused, natural cognitive functions of his brain.

Man must know how he 'knows' what he does, absent faith and belief and opinion; understand that 'knowledge' exists without contradictions and is and must be congruent with every other facet of knowledge he has acquired.

Please note that I make no reference to past thought on this subject and that that is a purposeful choice to level the conversation to just the content of your mind and your ability to think, not your formal education or previous readings.

Another fundamental observaton: no evidence exists to suggest the existence of a deity. There are no facts, no scientific evidence, no concrete, 'real' evidence to support even a theory of the existence of a deity, a supreme being, a greater power...

I ask that you put aside all your previously acquired faith and belief, all the common sense acceptance of social conscienceness, all the histories of men everywhere, since the beginning of time that have expressed a 'faith' in life after death and a supernal meaning to human life.

Can you do that? Begin with a blank slate insofar as belief in a deity is concerned?

For over a century, since the time of Charles Darwin, intelligent, educated people all over the world have turned away from faith and belief and sought rational, objective answers to questions formerly provided by religion.

It is time for humanity in general, to under go a Rite of Passage from faith, belief and emotionalism, and transition to a mature, adult existence of rational thinking and objective consideration of human existence without a God at the helm.

I think that will suffice for part one of my essay.

Your contributions will be appreciated.

Amicus

 

[Bebeslut]

Bertrand Russell was once asked what he'd say to God if it turned out Russell was wrong and there actually was a god.
"Not enoudh evidence."
You opened up a can of worms with this one, Amicus. Good luck.

I have long considered writing this essay and this is as good a place as any to begin.

A stipulative fact: Atheism is not a faith or a belief, by definition, your opinions be damned.

Atheism is a rejection of all faiths and all beliefs; a rational, cognitive quest for understanding the nature of life.

The subject subsumes all other disciplines that deal with human existence, again, by definition, as it is all encompassing.

"What happens when we die; as we all pass on..." "What is the prupose of life if there is no life beyond death, no creator, no giver of purpose and meaning to existence?"

Declaring Atheism demands answers to those questions and many more. What is good and evil, what is right and wrong, what is moral and what is not?

Why does any of it matter if there is no afterlife?

Here is the fundamental foundation upon which all knowledge is based: the ability of the mind of man to perceieve reality.

It is well nigh time, here in the 21st Century, to acknowledge, and then dismiss, the efforts of formal thinkers, Philosophers and Theologians, who have long meditated upon these basic questions of our existence.

A rational person must formally acknowledge that man has only one means of perceiving reality, that which is, through his five senses, and the focused, natural cognitive functions of his brain.

Man must know how he 'knows' what he does, absent faith and belief and opinion; understand that 'knowledge' exists without contradictions and is and must be congruent with every other facet of knowledge he has acquired.

Please note that I make no reference to past thought on this subject and that that is a purposeful choice to level the conversation to just the content of your mind and your ability to think, not your formal education or previous readings.

Another fundamental observaton: no evidence exists to suggest the existence of a deity. There are no facts, no scientific evidence, no concrete, 'real' evidence to support even a theory of the existence of a deity, a supreme being, a greater power...

I ask that you put aside all your previously acquired faith and belief, all the common sense acceptance of social conscienceness, all the histories of men everywhere, since the beginning of time that have expressed a 'faith' in life after death and a supernal meaning to human life.

Can you do that? Begin with a blank slate insofar as belief in a deity is concerned?

For over a century, since the time of Charles Darwin, intelligent, educated people all over the world have turned away from faith and belief and sought rational, objective answers to questions formerly provided by religion.

It is time for humanity in general, to under go a Rite of Passage from faith, belief and emotionalism, and transition to a mature, adult existence of rational thinking and objective consideration of human existence without a God at the helm.

I think that will suffice for part one of my essay.

Your contributions will be appreciated.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Thank you Bebe...I am hoping for some legitimate in depth commentary so that I might sharpen my logic and rhetoric....

Recent events, finding a publisher for both Ebooks and Print, that will accept what I offer regardless, and the Pandora's box of YouTube, once I get a better handle on the mechanics, I plan to flood the distributors with every piece of writing I have held back on for years.... With over 11,000 comments here alone, it will keep me occupied into the foreseeable future, as I endeavor to leave behind a written and spoken record of my thoughts for my children and grandchildren who are coming of age at an alarming pace....

I have discovered, over the years, as far back as college, that most who claim to be atheists, are not really atheists at all. For the main part, they are intellectual rebels against the status quo, the traditional and the conventional and have no understanding of what it really means to stand independent and look into the abyss of death and reality.

Thanks to an atmosphere, an aura, of existentialism and nihilism, subjectivism and moral relativism in most college curricula, I sense a quiet demand for a more explicatory avenue towards understanding reality.

Perhaps a 'Church of Man', is in the offing, dunno...

Amicus

 

[TxRad]

Many may be called or call themselves atheists but most are agnostics. There is a great difference.

 

[Bebeslut]

Many may be called or call themselves atheists but most are agnostics. There is a great difference.

Perhaps the more scientifically valid position is agnostic, like Michael Schermer.
There are others like Richard Dawkins who are avowedly athiest, but that, I think, is a choice, a belief. That's what I choose to believe.
I don't hold, a la Sam Harris, that you can prove there is no god, however. Or maybe I misread his book, maybe he's just saying there's high probability of no god. There was a high probability there wouldn't be life, too.
Then there's the notion that the universe is just part of a much larger structure, in which case a being from that much larger dimension would be indistiguishable by us from god.

 

[amicus]

Bebe...please do not take this as personal, as it is not intended as such, rather, my opposition to a commonly held conception about agnoticism:

Definition of AGNOSTIC

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

From the Merriam Webster online dictionary.

The 'trap' and the fallacy of agnoticism as a viable concept, is a philosophical contradiction in terms.

First, one much acknowledge intellectually that a word has a meaning; an absolute and unchanging meaning and definition, regardless of the language or the time reference frame. Words describe both concrete existents and logical/rational concepts that are universal and unchanging,

In formal philosophy, that is the second most difficult concept to comprehend; the first being, that reality exists, independent of the mind of man. A is A, a thing is what it is, and second, that the mind of man can accurately perceive that reality and communicate it, which is language, words.

The worst affect that agnosticism has on the human mind is that portion of your Post that I bolded. "unknown and probably unknowable". Man has only one method of learning about his existence and that is through the use of his senses and his brain. We acquire knowledge by 'knowing' simple concrete existents and then expanding knowledge from there. There is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to understand how man 'knows' what he knows.

We 'know' things, through our senses; we arrange and categorize those 'things' in only one way, the natural workings of the human brain, to form concepts and abstractions.

Your offering of 'agnosticism' dismisses the only means by which humans can learn, the unknown and the unknowable.

One can rationally state that there is no evidence to support the existence of A, B, or C, but one can not state that a thing is unknown or unknowable; to do so is to corrupt the process by which a human can 'know', anything.

Modern attempts to refute the above, with, 'Chaos Theory' and 'Uncertainty Principles' are largely the refuge of intellectual cowards who have lost faith, in the traditional sense, and seek a formulaic solution to support their theories that man can 'know', nothing with certainty.

It is a centuries long assault on the mind of man that is still taught at the University level yet today.

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

If you visit this forum You can read a lot of fascinating discussion on atheism. The regulars sharpen their wits on believers and trolls who come to challenge atheists.

You will soon see that there are many flavors of atheism. The strong tendency is to be aware of and trusting of the scientific process. But one does not need intellectual rigor to be an atheist-- one needs merely to have no belief in any god or gods-- the simplest and strictest definition of the word.

There are people who think they are a-theist when in fact they are antireligion. Others are apostate-- have withdrawn their belief so as to punish their God-- I find that one fascinating, and often struggle with these people to establish a definition of "Belief."

And then there are people who redefine the word "god" to include terms like "The Cosmos" as in; "The universe is aware and we are all apart of each and everything. " They say; "God is everywhere, you can feel his love!"

I say; "No, the universe has a name, and we call it the universe. It is not god. I do not need to ascribe the gratitude I feel for a beautiful day to anyone. I can ascribe the sensation of joy and awe to my nature as a human being."

 

[ishtat]

Atheism is a rejection of all faiths and all beliefs; a rational, cognitive quest for understanding the nature of life.

Amicus

Your definition Amicus is problematic. By making faith, belief and gods central, if only something to be negated as a denial of god(s) one is in danger of making them a first (and necessary) pre-requisite to the philosophy which you may propose to put in their place.

I prefer to think that atheism includes any system of thought that is without or absent any idea of god(s). I think it can include belief, for example you may argue for your contention about 'absolute values' suggesting that you have arrived at them through objective rationality but another individual might suggest they believe in exactly the same thing without a semblance of rational thought. (there you are - an easy target!)

I don't have time to say much more at the moment but I look forward to considering such ideas as:-

1 The substitution of the ego for god in much modern atheist thought particularly the essentially theist characterisation of the self in objectivism.

2 The religiosity of many atheist's methods of thinking (Dawkins et al).

All for now.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS is in error. Atheism is a belief. Whats more, AMICUS assumes he has perfect knowledge to prove the claim.

 

[Bebeslut]

I don't take your comment personally, but I never said anything of the sort. Check my post.

Bebe...please do not take this as personal, as it is not intended as such, rather, my opposition to a commonly held conception about agnoticism:

Definition of AGNOSTIC
From the Merriam Webster online dictionary.

The 'trap' and the fallacy of agnoticism as a viable concept, is a philosophical contradiction in terms.

First, one much acknowledge intellectually that a word has a meaning; an absolute and unchanging meaning and definition, regardless of the language or the time reference frame. Words describe both concrete existents and logical/rational concepts that are universal and unchanging,

In formal philosophy, that is the second most difficult concept to comprehend; the first being, that reality exists, independent of the mind of man. A is A, a thing is what it is, and second, that the mind of man can accurately perceive that reality and communicate it, which is language, words.

The worst affect that agnosticism has on the human mind is that portion of your Post that I bolded. "unknown and probably unknowable". Man has only one method of learning about his existence and that is through the use of his senses and his brain. We acquire knowledge by 'knowing' simple concrete existents and then expanding knowledge from there. There is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to understand how man 'knows' what he knows.

We 'know' things, through our senses; we arrange and categorize those 'things' in only one way, the natural workings of the human brain, to form concepts and abstractions.

Your offering of 'agnosticism' dismisses the only means by which humans can learn, the unknown and the unknowable.

One can rationally state that there is no evidence to support the existence of A, B, or C, but one can not state that a thing is unknown or unknowable; to do so is to corrupt the process by which a human can 'know', anything.

Modern attempts to refute the above, with, 'Chaos Theory' and 'Uncertainty Principles' are largely the refuge of intellectual cowards who have lost faith, in the traditional sense, and seek a formulaic solution to support their theories that man can 'know', nothing with certainty.

It is a centuries long assault on the mind of man that is still taught at the University level yet today.

Amicus

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I have some sympathy with Amicus' position, but have too often found Atheists "believing" in the non-existence of any form of deity. That does put them dangerously close to JBJ's perception of them.

I do not believe, nor do I disbelieve, the notion of a deity or deities, supreme or multifarious. I find no need to invoke such a notion in attempting to understand the universe nor do I find a need to disprove the notion. Essentially, I find the question of the existence of deities to be irrelevant. What I do need to address about it, as an anthropologist, is the apparent need of people to create their deities and then fight about it.

As a student in a parochial school I was taught that "God created man in his own image and likeness;" as an anthropologist who has studied comparative religion, I find that it would be far more accurate to declare that it is the other way around.

 

[Bebeslut]

As a student in a parochial school I was taught that "God created man in his own image and likeness;" as an anthropologist who has studied comparative religion, I find that it would be far more accurate to declare that it is the other way around.

Here, here.

 

[stephen55]

Atheism

From the Greek~atheos, a~not or without; theos~ god
thus; no god or without god

If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.
Voltaire

An atheist is someone who doesn't accept the existence or reality of a god or gods.

Since humanity has invented thousands upon thousands of gods (Hinduism has three or up to three hundred million, depending on the Hindhu), all fundamentalist Christians are pretty much as atheist as I am. They reject all gods but one. I just take my atheism one god further.

 

[Carnevil9]

We've been down this road before, so I'll just drop my vote without further ado: I agree with JBJ that atheism requires a belief in something that is unknown and unknowable.

 

[TxRad]

We've been down this road before, so I'll just drop my vote without further ado: I agree with JBJ that atheism requires a belief in something that is unknown and unknowable.

You are confusing atheists with agnostics.

Atheists believe there is no higher power.

An agnostic believes there is a higher power but they don't have a name for it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I mean, you can hold no opinion about all kinds of things. Black holes? I dont know and dont care and have no dog in the fight.

But if you assert there is no God, then you got a dog.

I tend to go with Richard Feynman's view about God. He claimed to be atheist but qualified his belief with the suggestion that no God presents some questions, like....WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

 

[sr71plt]

I think you are all supposing too much on what a good many in Western societies think about religion at all. God belief, athiesm, and agnosticism all are based on a thoughtful belief pattern of some sort. So many people now can't really be classified as any of those, I think, because they just don't put any effort into forming a conscious belief pattern about anything in the realm of religion. I dare say that the largest set of people in the United States, at least, are "know nothings" in terms of a spiritual belief pattern and the next biggest set are "environmental Christian/Jewish," in that they claim to be something and move in the environment of that choice, but actually don't give much thought at all to what their spiritual beliefs are.

 

[stephen55]

agnostic

From the Greek agnostos

a~ not or without; gno~ know; gnos~ knowledge

An agnostic is someone who holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of any god or of anything beyond material knowledge. (From The Oxford Concise Dictionary.)

So, an agnostic says that while there may be a god or gods, we don't have any real knowledge of such things and likely never will.

An atheist says there are no gods, period.

A theist says that god(s) are real.

To the theists I say, even though I'm not from Missouri, show me.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

agnostic

From the Greek agnostos

a~ not or without; gno~ know; gnos~ knowledge

An agnostic is someone who holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of any god or of anything beyond material knowledge. (From The Oxford Concise Dictionary.)

So, an agnostic says that while there may be a god or gods, we don't have any real knowledge of such things and likely never will.

An atheist says there are no gods, period.

A theist says that god(s) are real.

To the theists I say, even though I'm not from Missouri, show me.

On the basis of your belief system, Stephen, I would have to believe that you are from Missouri, even if you were born elsewhere.

And it really doesn't make sense that the onus of proof is laid on the non-believers...but, then again, belief isn't based on proof. (Wait, does that mean that Missourians are all atheists?)...

 

[squarejohn]

I read this many years ago, and it makes sense to me.
"Let us sacrifice to the gods. If they exist, they may be pleased, and grant us favors; if they do not exist, then no harm is done."

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Oh, Ami, isn't this just one of those times when we miss Colleen T?

To my mind, you ask the wrong question. For several millenia we, homus erectus (no pun intended), have been trying to rationalize the concepts of birth, life and death with infinity - and failing. Neither Darwin or Galileo answered the question of what happened "before".

Cats, dogs and the rest of the animal world are oblivious to the conundrum of why living beings are mortal but the universe is infinite. It started with a big bang? Then what was there before?

From Gaia through all the changing identies of deities we look to find an explanation of infinity. That is all religion is.

I have no belief that one day I will sit on a cloud looking down on my descendants but no-one has answered the questions of why the universe is there, what was there before it and what will be there after it.

From mystic belief to the creationists we have tried to analyze things against a cradle to grave reality - and failed.

Given all our scientific advances, we haven't intellectually understood infinity.

 

[stephen55]

On the basis of your belief system, Stephen, I would have to believe that you are from Missouri, even if you were born elsewhere.

And it really doesn't make sense that the onus of proof is laid on the non-believers...but, then again, belief isn't based on proof. (Wait, does that mean that Missourians are all atheists?)...

The onus of proof...

Theists can't prove that god(s) exist.
Atheists can't prove that god(s) don't exist.

I can't even prove that this whole discussion will ever go away.

A Muslim, a Christian and a Hindu walk into a bar...
...and the bartender says, "What is this? A joke?"

 

[stephen55]

It started with a big bang? Then what was there before?

Newspaper reporter (interviewing a theoretical physicist)...
"So you're telling me that the entire universe and everything in it, space and time included, just suddenly popped into being, from absolutely nothing?"

Theoretical physicist...
"Yes."

Newspaper reporter...
"Well, can you explain that?"

Theoretical physicist...
"No."

 

[Tio_Narratore]

It started with a big bang? Then what was there before?

Newspaper reporter (interviewing a theoretical physicist)...
"So you're telling me that the entire universe and everything in it, space and time included, just suddenly popped into being, from absolutely nothing?"

Theoretical physicist...
"Yes."

Newspaper reporter...
"Well, can you explain that?"

Theoretical physicist...
"No."

What was there before the before the big bang? And before that? Just accept it, Stephen, it's turtles, all the way down.

 

[grrlongrrrl]

A Muslim, a Christian and a Hindu walk into a bar...
...and the bartender says, "What is this? A joke?"

This made me laugh out loud.

FWIW I'm an agnostic. Organized religion is a clusterfuck, but at is most intricate level, particle physics (my specialty) is too perfect to be an accident.


K