One occasionally wonders, is atheism another form of empiricism?

[KillerMuffin]

I've been watching DCL deny the existence of god, ghosts, supernatural, errata on the boards since I got here and it's made me wonder.

He can't see it, hear it, feel it, or any of it. There is no way to prove to him that it exists because these things do not leave empirical evidence. The only satisfactory method of proving existence to DCL is through empirical evidence. Don't deny, you've been spouting this for years now.


Are atheists empiricists?

I've wondered.

 

[modest mouse]

I'm an atheist but would prefer not to be tossed in with DCL.

I think your logic is flawed Muffster but I also think you're just thinking aloud.

Proof has never been an issue with me.

You seem to be assuming that humans are built witha defualt setting of "belief in God". I would disagree with such an assesment.

 

[peachykeen]

good question. I consider myself an atheist but I'm willing to accept I may be wrong, but I am also scientifically inclined so maybe I am an empiricist. My mom's oncology nurse asked me if I wanted to pray with them today and it was uncomfortable for me, although I appreciate the sincerity of her gesture.

 

[Sillyman]

DCL believes in his senses, at least for the most part. What he can not touch, see, hear, smell, taste, or which can not be demonstrated in a percievable manner, he does not believe in. Since for the most part what we can sense is what we can interact with most surely, then he's fairly wise for doing this.

 

[alltherage]

I have found that with all things "spiritual " in my life there has been a direct association between what I can accept and what I can tune into. I know this sounds like drivel. Let me explain. For years I was dead to the word. I either drowned my sences or denied them. I denied my ability to love or be loved and really denied anything beyond my immediate reach. Life is simple when organizing this days valium is the priorty. As I became sober, and allowed myself to feel more I became more accepting of the world around me and the surprises that lay there. I no longer have to "see it to believe it." I know longer have to know all the answers. I am not an athiest, more probably agnostic, but I am at least awake to the possibility that I can change and that brings me a sence of peace and a sence of adventure. Chaos theory has me asking lots of metaphysical questions and I am quite enjoying looking for answers. The problem I have with the atheistic position is the same problem I had with catholic dogma. In both the level of absolutism is too much for me.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

You seem to be assuming that humans are built witha defualt setting of "belief in God". I would disagree with such an assesment.

Actually, geneticists and behavioral scientists believe there is such a thing as a genetic trait for religious belief, or a God gene if you will. This doesn't mean that there is a God, just that humans are genetically predisposed towards religious beliefs. There are reasons why this would be advantageous to humans - for one thing, it would tend to group them together for a common purpose.

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[sunstruck]

Actually, geneticists and behavioral scientists believe there is such a thing as a genetic trait for religious belief, or a God gene if you will. This doesn't mean that there is a God, just that humans are genetically predisposed towards religious beliefs. There are reasons why this would be advantageous to humans - for one thing, it would tend to group them together for a common purpose.

I'd like to see the papers on that theory.

 

[sunstruck]

But he believes in the notion of magic. Magic is not something that you can sense with any of your regular senses.

No, he believes in the notion of tricks. And he'll be the first to tell you magic is nothing but tricks. Very well done tricks in some cases, but still.

This is of course assumption based on what I've seen in his posts and not on any kind of mindreading.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Proof has never been an issue with me.

You seem to be assuming that humans are built witha defualt setting of "belief in God". I would disagree with such an assesment.

Actually, I don't believe we have default belief settings. Beliefs are taught, not inherent.

However, when you ask an athiest why he doesn't believe in god, you'll get as many answers as there are athiests. If you ask him what it takes to get him to believe in god, the answer is the same, "prove he exists and I'll believe in him."

The only acceptable proof appears to be empirical proof.

Proof that god exists isn't the issue of athiesm, but the issue of conversion.

 

[peachykeen]

proof isn't what I'm after. actually I am not after anything.

take a look at the human hand. what an amazing thing it is. or the way the petals of a flower unfold. for some, that is the proof. for me, it is no less awesome, just not evidence. but I marvel at it nonetheless.

 

[alltherage]

Actually, I don't believe we have default belief settings. Beliefs are taught, not inherent.

However, when you ask an athiest why he doesn't believe in god, you'll get as many answers as there are athiests. If you ask him what it takes to get him to believe in god, the answer is the same, "prove he exists and I'll believe in him."

The only acceptable proof appears to be empirical proof.

Proof that god exists isn't the issue of athiesm, but the issue of conversion.

One wonders what would constitute proof. I often wonder what human's reaction to absolute proof of gods existance would be. Personally, I think it would kill religion as we know it. God as revealed truth would require no priestly class to interpret for them. That would be wonderful. Oh, by the way, as proof of my exisitance I am making arkansas disappear as I write this.

 

[Unclebill]

Empiricism or Realism?

Perhaps he's just not willing to forego the rational capacity that is man's primary tool of survival and advancement. That's the basis of my decision in this particular realm.

I cannot fathom what comfort or benefit it might give someone to assume the existence of that against which their intellect should certainly rebel.

The essence of the argument is: "Believe it!"

"Why should I believe?"

"Because I (or someone) said it's so."

"On what basis do you (they) say that?"

"Just believe it."

"How do you know it's true?"

"Because I believe!"

What it does is put them at the mercy of the originator of the myth and surrendering one's consciousnss and intellect to another does not strike me as a particularly wise endeavor.

 

[Sillyman]

You know Bill, the thing is I think you have thought very hard about the questions, just not the answers.

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[Sandia]

Actually, geneticists and behavioral scientists believe there is such a thing as a genetic trait for religious belief, or a God gene if you will. This doesn't mean that there is a God, just that humans are genetically predisposed towards religious beliefs. There are reasons why this would be advantageous to humans - for one thing, it would tend to group them together for a common purpose.

Religion also makes you feel good.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Sillyman
You know Bill, the thing is I think you have thought very hard about the questions, just not the answers.

I'm not quite sure to what point you're leading regarding answers.

For myself, I need no further answers. I have come to a decision based on the evidence of reality within my experience and the reasoned evaluation of that information.

If you have some evidence that might change my judgment, you're certainly welcome to offer it but be advised reality is my context for evaluating any evidence offered. And reality is a relentless opponent of error and deception.

 

[Sandia]

You could also state in the reverse way...

Prove that he doesn't exist and I will stop believing in him.

Is that also empirism? (this is a new vocab word for me tonight )

It's virtually impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

 

[alltherage]

Religion also makes you feel good.

It does? I never felt real good when I got behind some old lady in the confession line and she spent 45 minutes with the priest. I always felt compelled to make up more sins than what I had commited.

It is so apparently true that Human Beings need to live in groups that the idea that we might have a God gene seems almost plausable. I wonder, however what this gene covers. It seems a bit to specific for identification purposes.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by *bratcat*
. . . Prove that he doesn't exist and I will stop believing in him. . .

Ever try to prove a negative?

 

[Sillyman]

I'm not quite sure to what point you're leading regarding answers.

For myself, I need no further answers. I have come to a decision based on the evidence of reality within my experience and the reasoned evaluation of that information.

If you have some evidence that might change my judgment, you're certainly welcome to offer it but be advised reality is my context for evaluating any evidence offered. And reality is a relentless opponent of error and deception.

Reality is a subjective term.

 

[sunstruck]

It's virtually impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

And this is why the argument of god's existance will never end.

 

[thorsteinveblen]

the not so uplifting view ...

If a deity did not exist, then humans would invent one. Perhaps we did.

Belief in a god, a supreme being, a cosmic consciousness or whatever construct works for you relieves each of us of accepting our utter insignificance and lack of free will. For, should there be no almighty something in what way are we different from a cat, a sparrow, an oak? Each a function of biology and chemistry, predictable once our empirical findings are sufficiently inclusive.

But I know that I am more than the result of a chemical reaction. How else can there be hope, be love, be passion, be pai, be ecstacy? This evening is not the most fulfilling or optimistic but I keep from doing something rash by believing that I can influence how tomorrow will be.

I ask the non-believers to help me see how it is in their world there is any hope, any freedom from the mandates of chemistry and biology.

And I do so in peace.

 

[peachykeen]

I am a big subscriber to the theory of collective consciousness. If you want to call that God, that's ok with me.

 

[Guest]

Actually, geneticists and behavioral scientists believe there is such a thing as a genetic trait for religious belief, or a God gene if you will. This doesn't mean that there is a God, just that humans are genetically predisposed towards religious beliefs. There are reasons why this would be advantageous to humans - for one thing, it would tend to group them together for a common purpose.

According to Joseph Campbell ("The Power of Myth"), this tendency can be explained as a need to rationalize the world by attributing that which we can't understand to some mythological being or non-manifesting force. Humans are sufficiently intelligent to need reasons for things that happen. If the technology isn't advanced to the point that empirical evidence is available, they will invent a source which required no evidence other than unquestioned belief. The only other explanation would be random incidence, and randomness is disturbing because it's not predictable. With an omniscent, omnipotent supreme being, all the loose ends are tied nicely, and life can go on. Nothing is random, because all events are the handiwork of the supreme being. As Sandia said, "Religion also makes you feel good".