Why is an Atheist an Atheist?

[Aldebaran]

OK, without religious belief there would be no such concept as atheism

The same counts the other way round.

essentially, it is not possible to know anything beyond our own experience, by definition: if we know it, then it must have fallen into our experience.

Not necessarily. Observation does not need include experience.

If you break us down into perception and perceiver, that which perceives can never perceive itself.

Do you mean: "while perceiving something, the perceiver can't perceive himself at the same time"?
I find that a questionable argument at best.

Thus any claim to 'know' about the nature of the perceiver (god, the soul, etc) is a mistake.

Humans can't "know" the nature of God. We are limited to guessing, thus constructing ideas about God (mostly from what is said in religious texts or teachings.)

There may be millions of 'mes' experiencing the world in the same way as the 'me' I think I am, or I may be but one branch of perception of a global 'me'. The point is that I can have no way of knowing either way.

I think you should have little doubt that there is only one "you" perceiving and experiencing as "you" do.

salaam.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The same counts the other way round.

Nope, not true. Religious believers can debate the ins and outs of their beliefs without ever referring to atheism.

Not necessarily. Observation does not need include experience.

Explain?

Do you mean: "while perceiving something, the perceiver can't perceive himself at the same time"?
I find that a questionable argument at best.

If the perceiver is perceiving itself, there has to be something other than the perceiver (as it is perceived) to do the perceiving of the perceiver. You're stuck on an infinite chain of perceivers there.

Humans can't "know" the nature of God. We are limited to guessing, thus constructing ideas about God (mostly from what is said in religious texts or teachings.)

Hmmm, you say 'guessing', I say 'making it up'.

I think you should have little doubt that there is only one "you" perceiving and experiencing as "you" do.

Why?

 

[rhys gethin]

God is not "like a human" in any way.

I don't know enough about Islam: in Christianity 'man' is supposed to be 'made in God's image'. I think that Islam is strongly into the notion of transcendence. The intellectual effort involved in visualising something large enough to comprehend (and be different from) all we know of the Universe is more than I can manage - or need to manage, in my opinion.

The other reaons you mention for your disbelief are arguments supporting my personal conclusion that God exists.

They don't support it. If you will to believe impossible things, will you: some people get five in before breakfast, so I'm told, but I think you are just supporting YOUR team.

(I don't know "james joyce") Can you explain why you say this?

salaam.

James Joyce wrote 'Ulysses' and is perhaps the writer who can use English in the most complex ways known. I think that those who say they 'believe' things like the various creeds or the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church are playing with words and their meanings in ways almost as complex, using language to mean things it does not seem to. I have been a Quaker attender (you don't have to 'believe') and I suppose I'm a sort-of-Buddhist now - but I reckon that the God-concept has, for this culture, drifted away into science-fiction and nostalgia. Perhaps it's a pity - lots of societies have defined themselves in religious terms - but without truth we're nowhere, if you ask me. Can it be you don't?

 

[Aldebaran]

Nope, not true. Religious believers can debate the ins and outs of their beliefs without ever referring to atheism.

I htought you meant the word "atheist" and its use would not exist. Hence the word "religious" and its use would not exist if there were no atheists.

Observation doesn't equal participating in the experience one observes.

If the perceiver is perceiving itself, there has to be something other than the perceiver (as it is perceived) to do the perceiving of the perceiver. You're stuck on an infinite chain of perceivers there.

Only to give one simple example: I perceive myself typing while perceiving the keyboard while perceiving the PC screen while perceiving the light of my desklamp while perceiving that I have too much other things to do then what I am doing right now, etc.. etc...

Hmmm, you say 'guessing', I say 'making it up'.

Whatever.

Why?

Because
a) you don't believe in the existence of God, who would know "you" and all your experiences etc.. just the same as "you" know "you"
b) supposedly you don't believe in the existence of Aliens who can do that either.
c) supposedly you believe to be a person and as such a unique creature. Even if you have an identical twin (or twins).

salaam.

 

[phildwyer]

Everyone believes in God. Everyone believes that there are conditions of possibility for existence, whether physical and psychological. Everyone believes in truth, everyone believes in goodness, everyone believes in love. The only disagreement is over how such concepts should be represented: anthropomorphically or in the abstract.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A.

ok, I concede your first point.

Tell me how it is possible to observe something and for that observation not to be experienced.

The perceiver that perceives all that you are doing is what I am talking about, right down to perceiving your thoughts.

Whatever is not an answer. I say 'making up' because there is no basis to any conclusion about the 'nature of god', so any position is as arbitrary as any other. 'Guessing' implies that there is some evidence to go on. There is a siginificant difference.

To your last point, I refer you to my first, that I make no claim to any divine knowledge.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think that Islam is strongly into the notion of transcendence.

Completely.
I don't "visualise" God (and there is no need for that anyway).

They don't support it.

Yes they do since I say it. I wouldn't argue against myself, would I?
I only support my own conclusions (which can incorporate or be in support of those of others) but what do you suppose to be "my team"?

I think that those who say they 'believe' things like the various creeds or the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church are playing with words and their meanings in ways almost as complex, using language to mean things it does not seem to.

Can you give some examples?

I reckon that the God-concept has, for this culture, drifted away into science-fiction and nostalgia. Perhaps it's a pity - lots of societies have defined themselves in religious terms - but without truth we're nowhere, if you ask me. Can it be you don't?

That I "don't" what exactly?
What is truth in your view?

salaam.

 

[inflatable jesus]

All I ever heard from atheists is that they "dont believe in God" and this statement of disbelief comes with various, mostly condescending, descriptions of "belief in God" and/or "religious people". Not much of an argument in my view.

This board being sort of "heaven" for atheists, it seems to me a good place to have a discussion about it.

I'm interested in arguments in defence/explanation of atheism (I'm not interested in being called whatever nice names many atheists reserve for "believers").


salaam.

Why would the statement 'I don't believe in God' require further explanation? It's a straightforward enough idea.

I would describe myself as an atheist because I'm not convinced by any explanation that I've heard of who or what God is. Therefore any God figure that I've ever heard anyone refer to - I don't think that person or thing exists.

I think it's more or less impossible to absolutely prove both existance and non-existance of God figures, but that the more reasonable position after reviewing the evidence at hand is to conclude that the God figure being refered to in religious texts does not exist.

I think that when people decide the opposite. It is for largely illogical reasons.

 

[Crispy]

You have a very different definition of 'god' though phil. My good friend, who is a christian, prays daily to a god whom he believes talks directly to him (through feelings and actions in the world, not 'voices in the head'). He believes that this god acts in the world to help the faithful. He believes that he will anger this god if he 'sins' and will therefore fall out of His favour. He believes that when he dies his 'soul' will depart his body and join this god in an everlasting heaven. I know this because we've discussed it in depth many times. He is not using metaphor, he does not talk about 'prime movers' and other philosophical concepts. For him, god is a real thing, acting in the world and responsive to his needs. This is the god that the 'angry atheists' array themselves against.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Everyone believes in God. Everyone believes that there are conditions of possibility for existence, whether physical and psychological. Everyone believes in truth, everyone believes in goodness, everyone believes in love. The only disagreement is over how such concepts should be represented: anthropomorphically or in the abstract.

Everybody knows that there is something rather than nothing. Everybody is mystified as to how there is something rather than nothing. If you define 'God' as 'existence' then yes everyone believes in god. I would define god as that which we do not understand. As such it is a word which obfuscates rather than clarifies.

 

[Aldebaran]

Tell me how it is possible to observe something and for that observation not to be experienced.

That is an other issue entirely. I said that observing does not equal experience of what is observed.

I say 'making up' because there is no basis to any conclusion about the 'nature of god', so any position is as arbitrary as any other. 'Guessing' implies that there is some evidence to go on. There is a siginificant difference.

I explained the difference in my post.
Example:
You as non-believer would be "making up".
I can "guess" because first of all I believe in the existence of God, secondly I therefore read religious texts giving me grounds for constructive guessing. This does not mean they give me grounds for "knowing" about the nature of God anything beyond what is presented by those texts.

What do you place under "divine knowledge" ?

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think it's more or less impossible to absolutely prove both existance and non-existance of God figures, but that the more reasonable position after reviewing the evidence at hand is to conclude that the God figure being refered to in religious texts does not exist.

Which evidence do you refer to?

salaam

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That is an other issue entirely. I said that observing does not equal experience of what is observed.



I explained the difference in my post.
Example:
You as non-believer would be "making up".
I can "guess" because first of all I believe in the existence of God, secondly I therefore read religious texts giving me grounds for constructive guessing. This does not mean they give me grounds for "knowing" about the nature of God anything beyond what is presented by those texts.

What do you place under "divine knowledge" ?

salaam.

1. That is not another issue. It is the crux of the matter.

2. Religious texts are arbitrary, therefore you cannot 'constructively guess' anything from them.

3. I would define divine knowledge as knowledge of something that is beyond direct experience. I refer you back to point 1.

 

[phildwyer]

Everybody knows that there is something rather than nothing. Everybody is mystified as to how there is something rather than nothing. If you define 'God' as 'existence' then yes everyone believes in god. I would define god as that which we do not understand. As such it is a word which obfuscates rather than clarifies.

But we can talk about what we don't understand. We can ask why we don't understand it, for example. And thus we can in fact find out about it. For instance, human consciousness is temporal and contingent, therefore we cannot understand that which is eternal and unchanging. If as you say God is that which we cannot understand, this means that God is eternal and unchanging.

The there is the distinction between the "hidden" and the "revealed" God (in Christianity the "Father" and the "Son"). Recognition of the fact that we can have the concept of eternity, but also know that we can never see things from an eternal perspective, has influence on our thought. Knowing this fact, we see things differently from how we would see them if we did not know it. This difference is the revealed God.

 

[Aldebaran]

1. That is not another issue. It is the crux of the matter.

Not as I understood your original claim. You seem to have shift it into an other direction.

2. Religious texts are arbitrary, therefore you cannot 'constructively guess' anything from them.

Need to look up "arbitrary" .

Done.

In my reading you use the word incorrectly, projecting your disbelief onto the whole issue, hence experiences don't match, let alone overlap.
What I take out of the text you can't, which makes that you can't do more then "making up" while I can constructively guess.

3. I would define divine knowledge as knowledge of something that is beyond direct experience.

Now you actually claim to take as divine knowledge every possible discovery made about what which is not known hence not experienced to this date.

salaam.

 

[inflatable jesus]

Which evidence do you refer to?

Initialy, Biblical explanations for things as compared to scientific explanations.

Secondly, whatever other components of religious belief I come across compared to what I understand about the world, nature and history.

So for example I could look at the biblical claim that all the humans and animals in the world were killed in a flood except those upon Noah's ark. I can compare that with a reasonable idea about how many species of animals can fit aboard a boat or the likelihood of all animal life developing from no more than two per species during the time that humans have had the necessary skills to build large boats or any other common sense reasons why that event could not have happenned and I would come to the conclusion that it is a myth and not something that actually happenned.

Hence, I come to a reasonable conclusion about an article of religious belief.

 

[rhys gethin]

Completely.
I don't "visualise" God (and there is no need for that anyway).

Say, imagine there being' then.

Yes they do since I say it. I wouldn't argue against myself, would I?
I only support my own conclusions (which can incorporate or be in support of those of others) but what do you suppose to be "my team"?

I suppose your team to be Muslims, and 'believers' in general. In my own opinion, without these inherited notions the God concept would never arise.

Can you give some examples?

'Everyone believes in God.' (phildwyer) would be a typical example. Manifestly, as language is normally used, that is nonsense.

That I "don't" what exactly?

Ask me. A mild joke.

What is truth in your view?

That our languages were created by creatures close to apes, that they carry vast loads of ideology and affect our perceptions, and that only mathematics and very direct perception, as in meditation, can be trusted at all - if anything can. Such discussions as this seem to me, therefore, at best a sort of superior footleball


Hwyl.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not as I understood your original claim. You seem to have shift it into an other direction.



Need to look up "arbitrary" .

Done.

In my reading you use the word incorrectly, projecting your disbelief onto the whole issue, hence experiences don't match, let alone overlap.
What I take out of the text you can't, which makes that you can't do more then "making up" while I can constructively guess.



Now you actually claim to take as divine knowledge every possible discovery made about what which is not known hence not experienced to this date.

salaam.

You have misunderstood me. 'When I die, I will go to heaven' is a crude example of divine knowledge. You cannot know this while you are alive, because it is beyond your direct experience. Of course when you're dead, you cannot know anything since knowledge depends on the physical workings of the brain, but I won't get into that one.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

human consciousness is temporal and contingent, therefore we cannot understand that which is eternal and unchanging.

It puzzles me, Mr D, that you are not atheist. I'm gonna hold you to that quote.

 

[red_gordon]

If there *is* a God surely he/she/it would have spoken/communicated to me. However this is not the case. I have never had such a revelation/experience. Therefore i am an atheist.

Furthermore, given the situation the world is in I also find religion and any talk of God offensive (though it is something i will tolerate).

 

[Aldebaran]

Initialy, Biblical explanations for things as compared to scientific explanations.

1.The Bible is not Al Qur'an. You better argue with Christians about this.
2. Personally I see nothing of what is described in Al Qur'an (or the Bible, for that matter) in contradiction with what you classify under "scientific explanations".

Secondly, whatever other components of religious belief I come across compared to what I understand about the world, nature and history.

Same counts for this.

As for "the flood" (also described in Al Qur'an) and other such stories:
Tells about local events, serves as an example and has to be taken allegorical as well. Besides that, the story of the flood could very well be based on real experiences with giant tsunami waves (to name one possibility).

Hence, I come to a reasonable conclusion about an article of religious belief.

If it is reasonable or not is for you to decide.
That doesn't automatically mean it is correct. It has more chances to be incorrect then what someone who is familiar with the text you discuss can tell you about how to take such stories and what to believe about it.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

You have misunderstood me. 'When I die, I will go to heaven' is a crude example of divine knowledge.

The truth is that I can't know if I go to heaven and can't know if I shall know it if I'm dead.
What I believe is that this is not for me but for God to decide upon.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I suppose your team to be Muslims, and 'believers' in general. In my own opinion, without these inherited notions the God concept would never arise.

I only "team" with myself although of course I explain Islam to those who want to know since it is what I am qualified to do, and such is a command of my religion too.
I'm not an antropologist, but as far asI'm informed, notions of or ideas on God seem to have existed for as long as there are traces of humanity.

'Everyone believes in God.' (phildwyer) would be a typical example. Manifestly, as language is normally used, that is nonsense.

I leave it to the poster to explain what he meant by that.

You seem to suggest that all you mentioned under your reply to the quesiton what "truth" is to you, for some mysterious reason don't count for me (although I never saw research that traced the development of language back to "creatures close to apes").
Why?

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

If there *is* a God surely he/she/it would have spoken/communicated to me.

How did you come to such a belief?

Furthermore, given the situation the world is in I also find religion and any talk of God offensive (though it is something i will tolerate).

How do you come to the idea that God would "actively interfere" with anything?

salaam.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree with Aldebaran on this point. It is a weak argument to say that there is no god because if there were it would have intervened. You fall into the same trap of baseless statements as the religious.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

This board being sort of "heaven" for atheists

Somewhat dramatic, don't you think? Does that make editor "God"?

I think with most theists - particularly theists remarkably unaffected by doubt throughout their lives - there simply isn't enough common ground to be able to have a decent conversation about it. Everything about atheism has to be couched in terms of the theist's understanding of the world, which is like trying to describe ice in terms of fire. You therefore get locked into dizzying inward spirals that lead you down onto a pinhead, where you spend 20 minutes dancing to the mind-numbing leaden thwacks of the theist happy hardcore beat with all the other angels, and then get the hell out.

I seriously think there is a finite proportion of my life I am going to spend debating the existence of God with theists. Not quite sure if I've passed the limit, but if not, I'm pretty close.

Everyone believes in God.

lol

 

[jæd]

I agree with Aldebaran on this point. It is a weak argument to say that there is no god because if there were it would have intervened. You fall into the same trap of baseless statements as the religious.

So what...? We should believe in a God that does nothing...? And if He does Nothing there's no much point in him existing, let alone being believed in...

TBH, saying that you should believe in him and have faith is a cop out for a lazy (ie *no*) God...

 

[Aldebaran]

Somewhat dramatic, don't you think? Does that make editor "God"?

I don't know. Maybe a message-board-god?

What do yo see as "the theist's understanding of the world"? (Maybe I could say the same about atheists.)

I seriously think there is a finite proportion of my life I am going to spend debating the existence of God with theists.

Acutally...I'm not debating the existence of God, I try to debate "the existence of atheists".

salaam.

 

[jæd]

I only "team" with myself although of course I explain Islam to those who want to know since it is what I am qualified to do, and such is a command of my religion too.

You have a degree in telling people fairy tales, and if they suffer now then they will be fine when they are dead...? very useful...

You seem to suggest that all you mentioned under your reply to the quesiton what "truth" is to you, for some mysterious reason don't count for me (although I never saw research that traced the development of language back to "creatures close to apes").
Why?

Try looking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

 

[jæd]

Acutally...I'm not debating the existence of God, I try to debate "the existence of atheists".

Well I'm an atheist, and I exist... Now lets see your God leave a message...!