Famous Atheist Quotes

[MrRadish]

It's not a philosophy, but an acceptance of our uncertainty regarding the cosmos. ...through to... of this presumed truth.

"You must give out more rep..."

:BRAVO:

I don't object to religion or religious people, but this is a very good explanation of the non-theistic view.

 

[Town Heretic]

If you need religion to develop perspective and stability, then you may not be cut out for atheism. At its very core, atheism..makes absolutely no proclamations about anything at all [yes, strong atheism posits the non-existence of supernatural deities, but I don't prescribe to that viewpoint so I really can't address it].

It also necessarily reduces absolute morality to relativism and cannot express objective meaning, beyond physical fact, only individual preference and desire. That's a poor model, though an easy one to live up to. But perhaps, if you aren't cut out for Christianity, it's better than nothing...sort of.

Many people, however, cannot deal with this void.

Many people find it inferior and unsatisfying as a model, yes.

They yearn for warmth and understanding.

They should yearn for indifference and ignorance?

They want to be loved, and cared for, and watched over, and saved.

And they, even by your standard, might well be (or have you changed you stance from a moment ago? There's nothing to stop you but you, after all..).And do you want to be unloved, uncared for and left to yourself then?

And despite the fact that whatever set of beliefs or ancient religious texts that gets them to this point can, in no demonstrable way, be proven to be superior to any other competing (or yet unknown) set of beliefs,

Nonsense by your own light. Any standard you choose that you prefer is in the preference superior in value to you. Now to the adherent it is preferable and superior by another set of valuations, but how can a relativist argue this point?

they maintain their faith in their religion of choice because not only does it fulfill their needs for this life, but, as an added bonus, it even promises an infinitely pleasant afterlife. BAM! Does it get any better than that?

You apparently must think so, since you cannot objectively disprove the belief and yet fail to share it.

Well, yes. The problem with religious faith is that in the process of obtaining this warmth and understanding, we delude ourselves into believing we know things that we really do not.

Ironically, something you cannot know.

We end up sacrificing this life

Sacrificing what, exactly and what, exactly is this life in the absence of objective and underlying meaning?

We love to think that our faith-based propositions are more accurate than these ancient "superstitions", and we even invent silly wagers to support our belief

And you don't believe your ideas to be better? If not, why choose them? And you don't have supportive arguments for your position? If not, why hold it?

[while seemingly overlooking the fact that it is very possible that we have chosen the wrong belief and will, as a result, burn in Hell for an eternity at the hands of another God], but we just can't seem to get over the immediate comfort and "understanding" that comes from faith in ______.

You should stick to setting out your own understanding. You're terrible at voicing the other side of it...not that you shouldn't be.

Ultimately, I support intellectual honesty.

How noble of you. And who exactly proclaimed their support of intellectual dishonesty? Just another way of saying that you think you're right then.

I am willing to admit that which I do not know, and I do not find any reason (other than temporary warmth, comfort, and faux-understanding) to pretend otherwise.

You're too modest. You're more than willing to admit what you don't know, you're willing to declare what others don't as well...and to infer their weakness of character and mind in the process.

I would rather accept my ignorance

Ask and you shall receive.

and forge a path toward understanding than presume understanding and forge a path toward an orthodoxy of this presumed truth.

Forge how, toward what, and to what end? At best you have nothing to offer and no particular reason to embrace it. Now the Theist and Christian might meet your fate, but only at the failed end of their propositions and, as PB points out, that point lies beyond understanding or disappointment.

 

[MrRadish]

It also necessarily reduces absolute morality to relativism and cannot express objective meaning [... Through to ...] that point lies beyond understanding or disappointment.

"You must give out more rep..."


I don't object to atheist or atheistic people, but this is a very good explanation of the... :think:

Is there such as thing as too open-minded?

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

TH, I would love to respond to your, um, points, but I will have to wait until tomorrow to do so. Tonight is the first Friday of my last semester at Pitt, and, needless to say, I have a case of Guinness in my closet just waiting to be cracked open and consumed. It's party time, my friend. I'll make sure to drink one in your honor.

:cheers:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

It's not a philosophy, but an acceptance of our uncertainty regarding the cosmos. The philosophy is what develops out of the understanding of our lack of understanding.

One's philosophy must flow from one's understandign of the cosmos as you said. I accept that there is, of necessity, uncertainty on the that account. I have chosen, knowingly, to embrace the possibilty that there is meaning and built my philosophy on that foundation, without ignoring the possibility that I am wrong.

If you need religion to develop perspective and stability, then you may not be cut out for atheism.

I don't need religion. Religion evolves from the core belief that there is a reason behind existence and the search for understanding of that reason and our relation to it. I don't need that core belief, but it helps me to understand and put in a perspective that is graspable the universe and our place in it.

At its very core, atheism is a very cold and sterile position; not because it proclaims that humans are free to act as animals or that any atrocity is justifiable, but because it makes absolutely no proclamations about anything at all

Yes, the heady existential draught that I long survived on. I remember it well. I am not, at heart, as far removed from that position as you might think; I don't make procaimations but suppositions- statements of faith not of fact.

[yes, strong atheism posits the non-existence of supernatural deities, but I don't prescribe to that viewpoint so I really can't address it]. Many people, however, cannot deal with this void.

Understandably. There is a human need to project pattern onto randomness, signal onto noise. It can be argued that this an evolutionary tool misapplied on a grand scale or a lock for which there is no tangible key in this universe but which is intended to point us towards the transcendant Divine. Either way I have decided that trying to buck this trend is ultimately unrewarding, staring into the abyss having palled for me.

They yearn for warmth and understanding. They want to be loved, and cared for, and watched over, and saved.

I think that this oversimplifies things. Yes, people want these things but there is no pressing reason to look beyond the physical for them. The same thing goes with the fear of non-existence, etc. All people are capable of hurling themselves into oblivion with a smile if the stakes are high enough.

And despite the fact that whatever set of beliefs or ancient religious texts that gets them to this point can, in no demonstrable way, be proven to be superior to any other competing (or yet unknown) set of beliefs, they maintain their faith in their religion of choice because not only does it fulfill their needs for this life, but, as an added bonus, it even promises an infinitely pleasant afterlife. BAM! Does it get any better than that?

People have any number of reasons for clinging to any particular form of religion. I think it is more important to consider the search and what that means rather than what other people have found.

Well, yes. The problem with religious faith is that in the process of obtaining this warmth and understanding, we delude ourselves into believing we know things that we really do not.

Such is human life. We are born in ignorance and things rarely get a great deal better. How much would you be willing to bet that the things you believe heartily are true will be as true in a few centuries? It is our nature to take as fact that which is only provisionally true at best. That is no reason to disdain knowledge, however.

We end up sacrificing this life for a collection of faith-based propositions that, for all we know, may be no more accurate than those of the Ancient Greeks, Egyptians, or Native Americans.

We must all make sacrifices to ideals and beliefs if we wish to live lives that extend beyond our skin and our own personal pleasure. I am content with the few I have chosen- none of which I believe are any different from the ones I would hopefully choose to make independant of any deity- and would not consider my life negatively impacted if I were proven wrong.

We love to think that our faith-based propositions are more accurate than these ancient "superstitions", and we even invent silly wagers to support our belief [while seemingly overlooking the fact that it is very possible that we have chosen the wrong belief and will, as a result, burn in Hell for an eternity at the hands of another God], but we just can't seem to get over the immediate comfort and "understanding" that comes from faith in ______.

I do not think those statements apply to my faith. All human beings try to come to terms with the universe and the Divine as best they may. I don't look down on anyone for those efforts.

Ultimately, I support intellectual honesty.

I know that you do and I applaud it. I hope you will accept that my own support for that remains untarnished by my conversion?

I am willing to admit that which I do not know, and I do not find any reason (other than temporary warmth, comfort, and faux-understanding) to pretend otherwise. I would rather accept my ignorance and forge a path toward understanding than presume understanding and forge a path toward an orthodoxy of this presumed truth.

Understanding can only come from an acknowledgement of ignorance. It can only come when we accept that it is possible to move on from that state of ignorance, however, and sometimes, particularly when dealing with intangibles like the Divine and the meaning behind existence, that movement involves faith and the acknowledgement that complete knowledge will never be available to us in this life. We can play it safe and remain in the cave or we can grope our fumbling way towards what may (or may not) be the light.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Wow! I have a lot to address tomorrow morning (well, besides a mild hangover)! I'll drink one for you too, PB. :cheers:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Wow! I have a lot to address tomorrow morning (well, besides a mild hangover)! I'll drink one for you too, PB. :cheers:

:cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

TH, I would love to respond to your, um, points, but I will have to wait until tomorrow to do so. Tonight is the first Friday of my last semester at Pitt, and, needless to say, I have a case of Guinness in my closet just waiting to be cracked open and consumed. It's party time, my friend. I'll make sure to drink one in your honor.

:cheers:

Hey, congrats on the final leg. Enjoy it and for Pete's sake don't stand around here with that waiting. :cheers:

 

[Wessex Man]

The change in ideology you allude to came from the change in technology - prior to the development of weapons that could allow armies to easily destroy foes many times their size caused a dramatic shift in stategic thinking about who to win wars. The idea of warfare then became to stifle the ability of an enemy to produce those weapons: thus the targeting of the civilian populations on unprecidented levels (civilians often worked in weapons plants - kill the laborers, destroy the weapons was their line of thought).

However as has been said this technology had existed for quite some time. The change in ideology was of course related but not completely dependent.

It is when you assert that an individual has no meaning apart from his society - but if the "meaning" itself is an illusion your point becomes moot.

Not really if man psychologically and sociologically requires it. As most psychologists and sociologists believe.

I'll agree with you that government today is overbearing, but it's not unprecidented in human history.

On this scale it is.

Why?"

Because I'm interested in squashing Jacobinism and related ideas. Your nihilism is repellent to even most liberals and will always be so to most people most probably, so I simply do not want to waste time on a conservation that I'm sure will be longwinded and boring.

 

[rexlunae]

Man's preeminence on a naturalistic level is the result of the intelligence that allows him to circumvent his natural limitations otherwise...but the order I describe depends on and is reflective of one simple proposition, that there exists a sentient wellspring of absolute good from which all things derive their existence/meaning and in whose will is found our order and our authority. It isn't arrogant if it's true and to those who believe it is true.

Perhaps, but it is the underlying assumptions inherent in that position which reflect the vanity required to hold it. We see that we are intellectually superior to most or all other species, by our own limited judgement, and so we consider that important, and we project that sense of importance for that trait onto the Divine along with all the other human qualities that we project.

My intent was not to present you a proof, only a context that negated your assumption and I believe I've done that. I don't assume you'll accept the reality of that context for yourself. You must, however, concede that for the Christian it exists. To judge the posture of the Christian without understanding that context invites the errant notion of hubris where none is found (well, where none should be).

The entire premise of the Christian religion is that the creator of the Universe reached out a hand to save us. That's vanity, and that's why it appeals to people. It gives people a sense that there is a purpose "out there" for them that is larger than themselves. The only reason that religion places us below God at all is to extract our piety for its own purposes. Or at least, that's the context that makes the most sense to me.

The vanity that you suggest seduces some into disbelief is only the assertion of some pretty basic things, such as an ability for moral judgement and self-generation of meaning without the need for these things to be poured into our skulls from outside.

Again, it isn't if doing so reflects the reality of the situation, though I don't see how dominion over animals relates to black holes.

Truth can pretty much be the defense against any charge of hubris. I only remind you that it serves equally well as the defense of those of us who've "been seduced by a subtle appeal to their vanity" into unbelief.

First, a Christian would be inclined to remind you that we don't claim to have discovered God through the use of our faculties. We hold that God has been with man and revealed Himself to man since the beginning of our kind. Now, in a more general Theistic response, how else would you allow for it or the knowledge of any particular thing?

Well, revealed knowledge is of a different sort, and I'm not going to pretend not to be biased against it. But there are quite a number of examples of attempts at empirical demonstration of religion.

Always a pleasure bumping into you around here, rex. :e4e:[/COLOR]

Likewise, always a pleasure...

And I apologize for the delay responding.

 

[Wessex Man]

The vanity that you suggest seduces some into disbelief is only the assertion of some pretty basic things, such as an ability for moral judgement and self-generation of meaning without the need for these things to be poured into our skulls from outside.

Meaning is to a large degree socially determined. Man is not an island and it therefore does come from "outside". Meaning comes to us to a large degree as children, parents, students, siblings, friends, colleagues, teammates citizens and such. It is developed in an interaction with society and those everyday associations which go to shape so much of our lives and who we are.

 

[noguru]

One's philosophy must flow from one's understandign of the cosmos as you said. I accept that there is, of necessity, uncertainty on the that account. I have chosen, knowingly, to embrace the possibilty that there is meaning and built my philosophy on that foundation, without ignoring the possibility that I am wrong.


I don't need religion. Religion evolves from the core belief that there is a reason behind existence and the search for understanding of that reason and our relation to it. I don't need that core belief, but it helps me to understand and put in a perspective that is graspable the universe and our place in it.

Yes, the heady existential draught that I long survived on. I remember it well. I am not, at heart, as far removed from that position as you might think; I don't make procaimations but suppositions- statements of faith not of fact.

Understandably. There is a human need to project pattern onto randomness, signal onto noise. It can be argued that this an evolutionary tool misapplied on a grand scale or a lock for which there is no tangible key in this universe but which is intended to point us towards the transcendant Divine. Either way I have decided that trying to buck this trend is ultimately unrewarding, staring into the abyss having palled for me.

I think that this oversimplifies things. Yes, people want these things but there is no pressing reason to look beyond the physical for them. The same thing goes with the fear of non-existence, etc. All people are capable of hurling themselves into oblivion with a smile if the stakes are high enough.

People have any number of reasons for clinging to any particular form of religion. I think it is more important to consider the search and what that means rather than what other people have found.

Such is human life. We are born in ignorance and things rarely get a great deal better. How much would you be willing to bet that the things you believe heartily are true will be as true in a few centuries? It is our nature to take as fact that which is only provisionally true at best. That is no reason to disdain knowledge, however.

We must all make sacrifices to ideals and beliefs if we wish to live lives that extend beyond our skin and our own personal pleasure. I am content with the few I have chosen- none of which I believe are any different from the ones I would hopefully choose to make independant of any deity- and would not consider my life negatively impacted if I were proven wrong.

I do not think those statements apply to my faith. All human beings try to come to terms with the universe and the Divine as best they may. I don't look down on anyone for those efforts.

I know that you do and I applaud it. I hope you will accept that my own support for that remains untarnished by my conversion?

Understanding can only come from an acknowledgement of ignorance. It can only come when we accept that it is possible to move on from that state of ignorance, however, and sometimes, particularly when dealing with intangibles like the Divine and the meaning behind existence, that movement involves faith and the acknowledgement that complete knowledge will never be available to us in this life. We can play it safe and remain in the cave or we can grope our fumbling way towards what may (or may not) be the light.

You have to spread around some more.....

That was a very well thought out post.

 

[Punisher1984]

However as has been said this technology had existed for quite some time. The change in ideology was of course related but not completely dependent.

And I think that without the new technology there would have been no reason to go down that road (as traditional means of warfare would have still proven effective).

Not really if man psychologically and sociologically requires it. As most psychologists and sociologists believe.

Of course, both the psychologist and the sociologist will admit that the only to ever actually test that idea to the point where there can no longer be any doubt to its truth (or lack thereof) would be to conduct "The Forbidden Experiment:" take a human as a young child and completely cut it off from all other human contact and observe its development.

Needless to say, there are all sorts of ethical dillemas raised by this prospect that no researcher wants to touch with a ten-foot pole.

Because I'm interested in squashing Jacobinism and related ideas. Your nihilism is repellent to even most liberals and will always be so to most people most probably, so I simply do not want to waste time on a conservation that I'm sure will be longwinded and boring.

So you are only interested in waging your little feud with the socialists? Pitty - you really should learn to broaden your horrizons: ideas that strike people as repulsive in one generation just may the ideas that define later ones.

If I were in your shoes, I'd learn how to take on all comers - as that's exactly what the traditional right-wing has to face at some point or another...

 

[rexlunae]

I might have been using a little bit of hyperbole there, but even during infancy human beings begin to display signs of self awareness that aren't really present in other species. Chimpanzees have been observed, iirc, to display rudimentary knowledge of others and even of concepts like fairness. This is from our brainiest cousins and even they don't show the kind of awareness that even a toddler has. Better doesn't really enter into the picture, however. This awareness has allowed us to conquer the globe in a way few species above a molecular level have done, so I think we are something special- but considering how much work so many put into NOT excercising their own awareness I'm really not sure "better" is the adjective I'd use to describe it.

I still don't agree, but I also think this point can be obviated pretty simply. I assume that you have not become a creationist during your journey into religion (please correct me if I'm wrong about that). If that is the case, then humans evolved from earlier species, and in that case, then it must be true that there is no reason in principle why we would be any different than what any other species could become, at least on a physical level, given the appropriate selection. You might argue for a spiritual difference, but that's well outside what evidence can determine.

No there isn't. That's where faith comes in. There is simply no way to truly "know" anything about the Divine, at least in the same way that we know about more tangible, less transcendant things like cars and rocks. In that respect I remain somewhat agnostic. I belive, however, that the Divine does consider us something worth bothering with.

You wouldn't be the first agnostic theist I've met before, but I've never understood how anyone can embrace the expansive Christian belief system while acknowledging that there is no way to know.

Perhaps the Divine wishes us to seek it more than find it.

Well, that's an interesting idea, and one to which I am not entirely opposed. But it seems to me that if that is the case, then every religion is profane because they all offer more answers than questions. In fact, you have joined a religion that almost uniquely emphasizes belief rather than seeking.

Out of curiosity, what alternative paths would you suggest?

I certainly can't propose a mechanism for knowing the divine, or even for seeking it. I basically assume that if the Divine is, and it wants contact, that it will initiate, since we are all made so completely incapable of doing so. But I also see know reason to believe in such things in the first place, so I don't trouble myself with beyond asking the questions that I can think to ask.

I believe that the need that human beings have to reach out to the Divine are indicative of a complex but at least in some respects two-way relationship, not a one-sided dysfunctional one.

And I believe that what people consider the Divine is a social device, a product of evolution, needed to fix people into their station within a society, and in that sense it is a two-way communication...only the communication is between us and society rather than us and some supernatural thing. I also believe that that communication is necessary to some extent, but that it could be done better if we dropped the bronze-age understanding of the process.

I wouldn't even begin to anthropmorphize the Divine by ascribing such human things as wants and needs to It if it weren't the only way to grapple with eterntiy and infinity and how we relate to it and vice-versa. I would say, however, that there is intent and purpose.

The only way that I can see to say that is to embrace certainty in speculation.

It is also very human, and the only way we have- unless you accept the possibility of revelation- of approaching the Divine.

Between assertion without evidence and private revelation, I don't know that I could pick a favorite, but I do know that I don't put stock in either.

 

[Town Heretic]

...the order I describe depends on and is reflective of one simple proposition, that there exists a sentient wellspring of absolute good from which all things derive their existence/meaning and in whose will is found our order and our authority. It isn't arrogant if it's true and to those who believe it is true.

Perhaps, but it is the underlying assumptions inherent in that position which reflect the vanity required to hold it.

I don’t see vanity in recognizing what God has set out any more than pointing to a sunset is an act of vanity. Your descriptive only works if you doubt the premise, which was part of my point.

We see that we are intellectually superior to most or all other species, by our own limited judgement,

By any objective standard, actually. I’ll grant I’ve seen a few elephant paintings and they’re not bad, but the canine symphony was a disaster and Johns Hopkins is still recovering from the absurd panda cure for cancer that didn’t pan out…and don’t get me started on the monkey’s Lear, infinite typewriters be hanged, a deadline is a deadline.

and so we consider that important, and we project that sense of importance for that trait onto the Divine along with all the other human qualities that we project.

Rather, to a Christian, you have it backwards; we reflect, in a poor and limited fashion, the attributes of our creator.

The entire premise of the Christian religion is that the creator of the Universe reached out a hand to save us. That's vanity, and that's why it appeals to people.

That’s an insufficient understanding and a vain one in that you assume what you cannot demonstrate (taking on an authority founded only in your being) and then project a judgment from that assumption on those you then deem vainglorious…The premise of Christianity is love and the demonstration of that in perfection, amending justice itself by grace. It’s remarkable when you get your head around it and nothing like vanity attaches to it. But again, I think the premise here is all and the difference between how we name things.

It gives people a sense that there is a purpose "out there" for them that is larger than themselves.The only reason that religion places us below God at all is to extract our piety for its own purposes. Or at least, that's the context that makes the most sense to me.

The problem is that you’re attempting to describe Christianity absent God (absent an appreciation/understanding of the relation). And that’s like attempting to describe a birthday cake using the candles.

The vanity that you suggest seduces some into disbelief is only the assertion of some pretty basic things, such as an ability for moral judgement and self-generation of meaning without the need for these things to be poured into our skulls from outside.

You can only generate the appearance of meaning or morality. Without an absolute and independent standard you’re just talking about preference and, if you’re lucky, agreement hammered into the social compact. As for meaning, well, if life is futile then meaning is a ghost chasing a whisper. And if life is nothing more than this experience, with annihilation at its end, then the process is a futile one of no consequence. That is the dull, inescapable foundational truth of the Atheist, no matter how his twisted Epicurean motto might seek to usurp that understanding or hide it from his contemplation.

Truth can pretty much be the defense against any charge of hubris.

I know. Isn’t it great?

I only remind you that it serves equally well as the defense of those of us who've "been seduced by a subtle appeal to their vanity" into unbelief.

The difference being only one of us can claim to know the truth, following his on light. And I was only using the description from within the Christian framework to describe how we see those outside of it. I understand that to an Atheist the faithful are enslaved by dogma and delusion just as I understand that to the faithful the Atheist is a slave to his sin.

Well, revealed knowledge is of a different sort, and I'm not going to pretend not to be biased against it. But there are quite a number of examples of attempts at empirical demonstration of religion.

Men can try that, I suppose. But I think the problem with the approach is that everything inside the natural world must be explained within the understanding provided through the experience of it. We cannot know how to look for that which is other than what we look through and with. And we cannot measure the measure.

And I apologize for the delay responding.

Never a need for that at all where you're concerned, the wait always bringing something worthwhile at its end.

...it seems to me that if that is the case, then every religion is profane because they all offer more answers than questions. In fact, you have joined a religion that almost uniquely emphasizes belief rather than seeking.

I grafted this bit because I couldn’t resist noting that the Hard Atheist is more to your objection, claiming such a grasp of this fundamental, improvable truth that further inquiry is superfluous. And finding God isn’t the end of questioning or seeking, only the beginning of meaningful inquiry and quest into the particular mystery. Faith is sufficient and necessary for salvation, but there is so much more to the Christian experience and journey than that....

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I still don't agree, but I also think this point can be obviated pretty simply. I assume that you have not become a creationist during your journey into religion (please correct me if I'm wrong about that).

Perish the thought.

If that is the case, then humans evolved from earlier species, and in that case, then it must be true that there is no reason in principle why we would be any different than what any other species could become, at least on a physical level, given the appropriate selection.

Very true. I'm not arguing that we are unique by design or necessity.

You might argue for a spiritual difference, but that's well outside what evidence can determine.

I imagine that any self aware species would struggle with sin, but a different evolutionary legacy might make it manifest differently. An interesting topic, but as you say, that's well outside what evidence can determine.

You wouldn't be the first agnostic theist I've met before, but I've never understood how anyone can embrace the expansive Christian belief system while acknowledging that there is no way to know.

Faith.

Well, that's an interesting idea, and one to which I am not entirely opposed. But it seems to me that if that is the case, then every religion is profane because they all offer more answers than questions. In fact, you have joined a religion that almost uniquely emphasizes belief rather than seeking.

Belief is the start of a search, not the end. The goal is understanding what those beliefs mean.

I certainly can't propose a mechanism for knowing the divine, or even for seeking it. I basically assume that if the Divine is, and it wants contact, that it will initiate, since we are all made so completely incapable of doing so. But I also see know reason to believe in such things in the first place, so I don't trouble myself with beyond asking the questions that I can think to ask.

If you don't look how do you know the Divine hasn't initiated this contact?

And I believe that what people consider the Divine is a social device, a product of evolution, needed to fix people into their station within a society, and in that sense it is a two-way communication...only the communication is between us and society rather than us and some supernatural thing.

Certainly the Divine can be used that way and often has been, but so have any number of other ideas. The will of the people, the greater good, etc. I would say that looking to other human beings to know the Divine is ultimately fruitless.

I also believe that that communication is necessary to some extent, but that it could be done better if we dropped the bronze-age understanding of the process.

Agreed. The Divine is not something to be found in a crowd.

The only way that I can see to say that is to embrace certainty in speculation.

That is what faith is. When absolute knowledge is unavailable we can either stagnate or move forward in faith on our best efforts to approach the Truth.

Between assertion without evidence and private revelation, I don't know that I could pick a favorite, but I do know that I don't put stock in either.

I understand completely. It is not an easy thing to do for us, is it, to abandon the certainty of the material for the world of faith? All I can offer is that it starts with the statement "there is a reason".

 

[Wessex Man]

And I think that without the new technology there would have been no reason to go down that road (as traditional means of warfare would have still proven effective).

The war started out with an intensity that had not been seen in European warfare for a millenia and cicumstances never seen before, this was certainly not completely to do with technology. It was not technology that raised the banner of the French republic and decided to kill its King.

Of course, both the psychologist and the sociologist will admit that the only to ever actually test that idea to the point where there can no longer be any doubt to its truth (or lack thereof) would be to conduct "The Forbidden Experiment:" take a human as a young child and completely cut it off from all other human contact and observe its development.

Needless to say, there are all sorts of ethical dillemas raised by this prospect that no researcher wants to touch with a ten-foot pole.

Yes because that is the only way to prove humans are social creature sand society is important to their development.:doh:

So you are only interested in waging your little feud with the socialists? Pitty - you really should learn to broaden your horrizons: ideas that strike people as repulsive in one generation just may the ideas that define later ones.

If I were in your shoes, I'd learn how to take on all comers - as that's exactly what the traditional right-wing has to face at some point or another...

I'm not really the traditional right.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Fun night, rough morning. But hey, isn't that what college is about (well, except for that whole "learning" thing I keep hearing about)? Anyway, let's get this party started;

It also necessarily reduces absolute morality to relativism and cannot express objective meaning, beyond physical fact, only individual preference and desire. That's a poor model, though an easy one to live up to. But perhaps, if you aren't cut out for Christianity, it's better than nothing...sort of.

I never said that it was a great (or even preferable) model, but that it is the model we are currently stuck with. Unless we are able to prove the existence of a God or supernatural deity, and thus verify that our perception of universal moral truth is, in fact, endowed to us by our creator (and not simply based on a collection of ancient superstition and dogma, however relevant and beneficial it all may be), we are left with, by default, moral relativism. While our moral precepts may be based upon universal moral truths, we are unable to verify this notion and, accordingly, have no more claim to an understanding of this objective morality than does anyone else. In the end, we simply have a wide (and potentially endless) variety of codes of universal moral truth; many of which may ultimately benefit their adherents and provide meaning and value to their lives, but none of which can claim with absolute certainty that their code is the code.

Many people find it inferior and unsatisfying as a model, yes.

Well, that is why we are having this discussion.

They should yearn for indifference and ignorance?

They should yearn for humility and acceptance of our limited understanding of the cosmos, not absolute certainty regarding faith-based propositions.

And they, even by your standard, might well be (or have you changed you stance from a moment ago? There's nothing to stop you but you, after all..).And do you want to be unloved, uncared for and left to yourself then?

Ah yes, a playful jab at a moral relativist because, without an objective source of universal moral truth (i.e. God), we are nothing but a silly and indecisive species who's thoughts, ideas, and beliefs can change at the slightest of whims. But to answer your question; yes, I would prefer to be loved and cared for. However, I seek this love and affection from other human beings, not an abstraction whose existence is no more proven than that of Zeus, Wakan-Tanka, or Krishna. Instead of comforting myself with the pleasant (though unverified) idea of an almighty Heavenly Father who carefully watches over my every action and has a Holy plan for my existence, I recognize that, for all you or I know, there is no Heavenly Father who carefully watches over my every action and has a Holy plan for my existence. It's a nice belief, however. But then again, so was the story of Santa Claus.

Nonsense by your own light. Any standard you choose that you prefer is in the preference superior in value to you. Now to the adherent it is preferable and superior by another set of valuations, but how can a relativist argue this point?

You may have read a little too much into that statement. Replace "superior" to "true" and that should clear things up.

You apparently must think so, since you cannot objectively disprove the belief and yet fail to share it.

One cannot objectively prove the non-existence of any entity. With enough qualifying statements no one would be able to disprove the existence of an 800-pound purple and pink-striped zebra who, I claim, is attached to my right hip. My point is not that your religion is wrong and that God does not exist, but that you or I don't know if your religion is right or wrong (though many like to think they do) and that you or I don't know whether God or any supernatural entity exists or does not exist (though many like to think they do). Ultimately, it's a very big question mark. I accept this question mark. You, as well as all other theists, feel the need to replace that question mark with something (anything) rather than accept our uniquely uncertain grasp of the cosmos.

Ironically, something you cannot know.

Like I have already said, I do not claim that you are right or wrong in your conviction, but that in maintaining a faith-based proposition, you are inherently uncertain about its truth or falsity.

Sacrificing what, exactly and what, exactly is this life in the absence of objective and underlying meaning?

Town Heretic, let me ask you this very hypothetical question; if it were scientifically proven that there were no objective and underlying meaning to life, would you instantly kill yourself? Or, instead, would you attempt to come to terms with this startlingly cold and indifferent realization and try to make the best of this temporary consciousness and physical body that you were overwhelmingly lucky enough to assume?

And you don't believe your ideas to be better? If not, why choose them? And you don't have supportive arguments for your position? If not, why hold it?

Atheism (particularly weak atheism; the form I prescribe to), is not an idea at all, it is the lack of an idea. It is an acceptance of uncertainty and our limited understanding. It is not an impediment to further knowledge, but a sound basis upon which we can build a truly rational, logical, and scientific foundation of understanding.

You should stick to setting out your own understanding. You're terrible at voicing the other side of it...not that you shouldn't be.

That didn't actually address my point that Pascal's Wager breaks down once we realize that there are an infinite number of other possibilities outside of "God exists and I go to Heaven" or "God does not exist and the atheist and I share the same fate." What if "God" is actually very supportive of skepticism and will send to Hell all of those who had faith in His existence, while saving those who held out for additional evidence? That sounds highly unlikely considering everything that Christianity teaches, but, for all we know (literally), that just might be true. The point is that we do not know.

How noble of you. And who exactly proclaimed their support of intellectual dishonesty? Just another way of saying that you think you're right then.

I'm right about what? You still don't seem to be grasping the fundamental basis of my argument. I'm not stating that I am right and you are wrong, but that we both don't know. I don't believe that is a particularly bold statement either, considering that Christians are typically well aware that religion is a faith-based proposition. Unfortunately, theists don't follow this position to its logical conclusion; that their own faith of choice is just as verifiably true as any other faith of choice (i.e. it isn't). It's a position of religious faith, and is on the same plane as any of the other numerous and varied religious traditions which have come and gone through history (and have even yet to be founded).

You're too modest. You're more than willing to admit what you don't know, you're willing to declare what others don't as well...and to infer their weakness of character and mind in the process.

One word: faith. If it were proven or verifiable, my friend, it would be universal. But, alas, it is not.

One more question; TH, would you allow for even the slightest possibility that you are 100% incorrect in your religious conviction? Perhaps you have chosen the wrong God. Perhaps there is no God. Perhaps the Christian God exists, but His words have been so terribly altered by man as to no longer be representative of His original intention? Would you be willing to allow for this slightest of possibilities?

Ask and you shall receive.

We are both in the same boat, my friend. It's just that one of us would rather not embrace doubt and uncertainty.

Forge how, toward what, and to what end?

The scientific method; a more developed understanding of the cosmos; peace, prosperity, and a more promising future. It may not mean a darn thing, but heck, we might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

At best you have nothing to offer and no particular reason to embrace it. Now the Theist and Christian might meet your fate, but only at the failed end of their propositions and, as PB points out, that point lies beyond understanding or disappointment.

Atheism offers intellectual honesty; i.e. accepting uncertainty and not filling this void with baseless and unverified/unverifiable assertions. Finally, your second point basically expresses the idea that you would rather take a stab in the dark and be wrong than to never take a stab at all. That would be all fine and dandy, of course, if you and your fellow believers, past and present, could do so in a peaceful and humble way. Unfortunately, that is not how religion typically works. Christianity lays claim to one of the absolute bloodiest histories of any organized religion in the history of the world. From crusades to inquisitions, witch hunts to forced conversions, and everything in between, Christianity (more aptly, Christians) have been anything but peaceful and humble in regard to their stab in the dark. You, Town Heretic, seem to be a very intelligent, witty, and kind man and are certainly not representative of this extraordinarily bloody past, but that is not to say that your religion has not provided an "out" for innumerable atrocities throughout the course of history. I'm not saying that religion is an evil force, but that it provides believers with a false sense of certainty that encourages behavior which can only be described as reckless and arrogant by those of us who accept our uncertainty. For these reasons, I feel that religion should be abandoned and uncertainty embraced, because, after all, that is what we are ultimately left with.

Wow! That took a bit longer than expected. Enjoy.

 

[Town Heretic]

In the interest of eyestrain, Part I.

I never said that it [relativism] was a great (or even preferable) model, but that it is the model we are currently stuck with. While our moral precepts may be based upon universal moral truths, we are unable to verify this notion

Well, to the one experiencing God this isn’t entirely true, but I’ll take your point that to that one it will remain impossible to demonstrate, objectively, the reality of his experience.

…accordingly, [we] have no more claim to an understanding of this objective morality than does anyone else.

Actually, those who believe in objective morality and its necessary source must claim a greater understanding than those who, by virtue of their relativistic creed, cannot maintain that such a thing even exists.

Re: the response to what is.

They should yearn for humility and acceptance of our limited understanding of the cosmos, not absolute certainty regarding faith-based propositions.

Are you under the impression that the Atheist model is steeped in humility? And since when is professed ignorance anything like a sign of that particular virtue, one rendered meaningless (except in the individual understanding of it) the moment you toss out an objective source needed to define it…A model that makes of every man the supreme personal arbiter of moral truth is hardly a humble one.

Ah yes, a playful jab at a moral relativist because, without an objective source of universal moral truth (i.e. God), we are nothing but a silly and indecisive species who's thoughts, ideas, and beliefs can change at the slightest of whims.

I’m less concerned with whim than with the ethnocentric principle expressing itself darkly as a collective will to malice, prejudice and usurpation of right with no absolute moral contradiction to meet or temper its expression.

But to answer your question; yes, I would prefer to be loved and cared for. However, I seek this love and affection from other human beings, not an abstraction whose existence is no more proven than that of Zeus, Wakan-Tanka, or Krishna.

They can love you, but they cannot save you or give your life real purpose and meaning. And you can list as many place holding names for God in a row as you like and we can debate the particular merits of any number of myths, argue over whether Lewis was right and the Christian myth is real and echoed, reflected and foreshadowed by those others, but the proposition remains a singular one.

One cannot objectively prove the non-existence of any entity.

Or the sincerity of anyone. It doesn’t follow that no one is.

My point is not that your religion is wrong and that God does not exist, but that you or I don't know if your religion is right or wrong (though many like to think they do) and that you or I don't know whether God or any supernatural entity exists or does not exist (though many like to think they do).

You seem remarkably certain of that.

If you get down to it, neither of us can know very much of anything with certainty if by know we mean demonstrate universally. I’d argue that the larger part of our lives is guided by decisions to accept any number of assumptive premises. Does she love you? You can hope, but you must decide the matter to ask the question. That’s a form of faith. The sorts of assumptions we make are really at the heart of this…the declaration we fashion with our lives. If nothing is knowable where and in what do you place your hope? Some place it in that which by its nature cannot return anything of value and must, following its conclusion, rob life of that which makes hope possible. It’s a grim sort of God, however you name it.

Ultimately, it's a very big question mark. I accept this question mark. You, as well as all other theists, feel the need to replace that question mark with something (anything) rather than accept our uniquely uncertain grasp of the cosmos.

We see the same landscape and the Theist finds it imbued, gravid with meaning and the stamp of creation, a part of the great chain of cause that all life is involved in. The Atheist looks and must say this cause is the cause of itself. The Agnostic says it cannot be known and there’s nothing for it, but he must live as though it can be decided, will live as though it is decided and so his protest is an illusion. There is no objective ground where perspective is concerned, absent an intentional blinkering with regard to the foundational question of existence.

… in maintaining a faith-based proposition, you are inherently uncertain about its truth or falsity.

I am nothing of the sort. There is a very large difference between being able to produce the love I have for my wife for your examination and doubting that I feel it.

Sacrificing what, exactly and what, exactly is this life in the absence of objective and underlying meaning?

Town Heretic, let me ask you this very hypothetical question; if it were scientifically proven that there were no objective and underlying meaning to life, would you instantly kill yourself? Or, instead, would you attempt to come to terms with this startlingly cold and indifferent realization and try to make the best of this temporary consciousness and physical body that you were overwhelmingly lucky enough to assume?

That isn’t an answer to my question. I hear the sacrifice line used all the time by those whose very posit negates their ever having to make one, yet I’m at a loss for what it is they think I have been denied. To answer your inquiry, I would proceed as I did before I was found, as I find the experience of life enjoyable and the alternative will come in its own good time. I would not, however, find the prospect of that existence lucky. To do so would be an offense against horror visited upon the innocent and unanswered by justice.

Atheism (particularly weak atheism; the form I prescribe to), is not an idea at all, it is the lack of an idea. It is an acceptance of uncertainty and our limited understanding.

I’ll happily concede that it isn’t much of an idea…but you cannot live “as though” there “might be” a source of absolute moral authority and a corresponding code of conduct. It is one thing to consider the matter and another thing to act. The moment you act you take a position.

It is not an impediment to further knowledge, but a sound basis upon which we can build a truly rational, logical, and scientific foundation of understanding.

With respect, you cannot build anything on nothing.

That didn't actually address my point that Pascal's

Who was arguing it? But the answer is that to believe in God is to trust His goodness, justice and mercy.

 

[Town Heretic]

Part Two.

… And who exactly proclaimed their support of intellectual dishonesty? Just another way of saying that you think you're right then.

I'm right about what?

About being intellectually honest. If you believe both sides are then it’s a peculiar point to raise. If you don’t, it’s a peculiar objection you make here.

You still don't seem to be grasping the fundamental basis of my argument.

Anything is possible except what isn’t.

I'm not stating that I am right and you are wrong,

Of course you are.

but that we both don't know.

Which, coincidentally enough, would be your position. Look, if I say there’s a wall in the darkness and you say we can’t know then you are saying you believe that I’m wrong in my assertion that I can know, however open minded you might be about the wall.

…theists don't follow this position to its logical conclusion; that their own faith of choice is just as verifiably true as any other faith of choice (i.e. it isn't).

You’re confusing verifiable to the adherent with objectively demonstrable to others.

One word: faith. If it were proven or verifiable, my friend, it would be universal. But, alas, it is not.

Faith is entirely verifiable and provable AND universal...faith in what is another matter. You mean God, not faith. You mean we cannot demonstrate the existence of the root of our faith. And we, chuckling, find it peculiar that in stating this you miss the point almost entirely.

One more question; TH, would you allow for even the slightest possibility that you are 100% incorrect in your religious conviction? Perhaps you have chosen the wrong God.

No, but then I didn’t choose God (something of a long story in the telling). As for the Muslim or Jew, etc., the God who came calling is one I’ll trust to deal with them in both justice and mercy. I leave it between them…

Perhaps there is no God.

No. I’m as certain of this fact, as I write this, as I am that the sun remains in the sky (well, more certain, for several seconds) and for the same reason. I experience them personally.

Perhaps the Christian God exists, but His words have been so terribly altered by man as to no longer be representative of His original intention? Would you be willing to allow for this slightest of possibilities?

No. I don’t believe it’s rational to on the one hand posit a God who can fashion universal law and then suggest He might not be capable of passing along a few important ideas.

We are both in the same boat, my friend. It's just that one of us would rather not embrace doubt and uncertainty.

Rather, it’s that only one of us feels he has to.

Re: how to fashion purpose and meaning.

The scientific method; a more developed understanding of the cosmos; peace, prosperity,

It will tell you any number of things. It will never instruct you in what is right or wrong or how to live your life abundantly.

and a more promising future. It may not mean a darn thing, but heck, we might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

You may as well not, for that matter…and it cannot give you a promising future, having divested you of that which makes promise meaningful.

Atheism offers intellectual honesty; i.e. accepting uncertainty and not filling this void with baseless and unverified/unverifiable assertions.

No, Atheism fills it with another sort of nothing and is no more honest (demonstrably, objectively true) than its counter.

Finally, your second point basically expresses the idea that you would rather take a stab in the dark and be wrong than to never take a stab at all.

Not really my point, though I’d say given a choice between a joyful, meaningful, fulfilling approach to the unknowable and a fatalistic, nihilistic one…well.

That would be all fine and dandy, of course, if you and your fellow believers, past and present, could do so in a peaceful and humble way.

Again, you’re killing me with the humility bit…though why you care about their attitude is beyond me and how you would feel fit to judge it should be beyond you.

Re: horrors and the name of God.

Unfortunately, that is not how religion typically works.

Really? Can you validate this? Most of this country proclaims itself to be Christian. How many witch hunts, crusades, etc. have come as a result of it? And how many millions have died under the self expressed godless will of communism? How many did Stalin manage to kill to suit his will? Pol Pott?

No, I’m not actually arguing that Atheism leads to that sort of evil nonsense any more than you should be arguing the counter. Men organize and do horrible things in the name of God or state or ideas of any number of stripes. They do this because often monsters wear a human face and cajole the monsters of others into sing-a-longs. And we all pay the piper at the chours.

Christianity lays claim to one of the absolute bloodiest histories of any organized religion in the history of the world.

Is that so? What are the actual numbers of people dead due to Christianity, as opposed to other religions and those states/organizations who kill absent that foundational belief? I think if you begin to look for those you’ll abandon the argument on this point.

You, Town Heretic, seem to be a very intelligent, witty, and kind man

My mother thanks you and right back at you.

For these reasons, I feel that religion should be abandoned

Then for those very same reasons you must embrace anarchy, else Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pott or their like come again and perpetrate horrific acts in the name of the state.

and uncertainty embraced, because, after all, that is what we are ultimately left with.

I think you’re confusing the problem of man with the idea of God. If you are right and there is no God then it follows that all these horrors you attribute to religion are nothing more than man creating the means to do that which he wills and justify it. Just so, he will justify it in law (as in Germany) or in an allegiance to a greater tomorrow (as in the USSR)…Religion has never been the problem. Religion, like the state, has been used by evil men for evil purpose.