Atheists Should Be Treated Like Trolls – FOX NEWS
Wow. Just wow.
I shouldn’t even look at anything from Fox News because this is so typical. But it’s been a while since I’ve seen a news story with logic this flawed. As the video explains, there was an atheist sign near a nativity scene that was stolen, and the owners of the sign now want to replace the old one with a “thou shall not steal sign”. Fox makes it sound like that by doing this, the atheists are hypocrites. It’s definitely ironic, that’s for sure, but apparently not for reasons anyone at Fox realizes.
Michelle Malkin goes on to complain about atheists a little bit. She suggests that atheists are just being attention whores with all these “christmas wars”, “outbursts”, and “tantrums” (apparently a sign qualifies waging war on Christmas.)
She then says that atheists are so radical, soon they’ll be saying they’re indispensable.
I don’t know about you, but I find atheists pretty useful. A good majority of the world’s most influential and intelligent scientists are atheists. I’ve never thought about it before, but I realized that, yeah, if every atheist in the world were to just suddnely disappear, there would be problems, especially because so many intellectuals are atheists. Malkin suggests, however, that if every atheist alive just suddenly died… well, it would be no skin off her back.
But get ready, because she’s about to say the most horrible, meaningless, overdone remark you can imagine. Ugh. I hate this, hate this, HATE this line. I hear it in discussions, debates, you name it. People think it’s a valid thing to say. They think that it gives them extra points and automatic credibility. And I’m sure you guys know what I’m talking about.
Immediately following her last comment, Michelle Malkin says:
“Now, some of my best friends are atheists.”
What?! Does she hear the things she’s saying about “some of her best friends”?
A minute later she says atheists “just can’t leave well enough alone and let people enjoy the season.”
So someone who had their property vandalized should just let it go because it’s Christmas? I mean really. She relates the sign to “making a nusence in the town square.”
And THEN… oh boy, this is good… that blonde news anchor from the beginning of the video says that if this kind of thing doesn’t stop… Christianity will DISAPPEAR.
And now for the biggest joke of all.
The solution? Treat atheists like trolls. Mock them. They’re just attention seekers anyway.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Chris Basinet
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Hi Jesse
Ok. Let us wiki “brainwashed” : “”Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — beliefs sometimes unwelcome or in conflict with the person’s prior beliefs and knowledge,[1] in order to affect that individual’s value system and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors.”" An individual is not born with religious beliefs. My contention is religion is an irrational belief that is a hindrance. Are there people who believe in religions? Yes. That is about as much evidence as can ever be provided. And actually, since you pointed out so eloquently: The burden of evidence lies with whoever is making the positive claim…” It is this burden that lies with those who make any theistic or superstitious proposition. An atheist does not have to say why (s)he does not believe in any particular god or religion the same as they do not have to explain why they do not believe in Unicorns, Homeopathy, Astrology, or any other notion.
Regards
Dave
Whether or not there is evidence of religion getting it right wasn’t the point I was making. The point I was making was the assertion that people follow religion because they are brainwashed into it. Certainly there would be those who go all Richard Dawkins on people, who bully, threaten, cajole, pressure, until they just cave and feel they have to follow that belief just so they would be left alone. But there are many who are not brainwashed or forced into religion. Shawn Michaels for example, he didn’t have religion pushed onto him, he knew his life was a wreck, his wife was such a great person and he thought “wow, y’know Rebecca makes it look so easy, she’s such a great person, maybe there’s something there that I need.” Now I’m not saying he’s right to take up religion the way he did, nor am I saying his beliefs are valid. Neither am I saying that for Jane Fonda, Johnny Hart, Gary Busey, Vitor Belfort, George Foreman, Kurt Warner, or any number of born again Christians or those who came to religion rather than having religion come to them. What I’m saying is to say people follow religion because they are brainwashed into it is like saying people join the police force because they want to shoot someone and then go through the therapy that takes place after a police shooting. In fact there is evidence to support many seek out religion rather than it being put on them in any way.
Hi Jesse
Though I understand where you are trying to come from, your example does not make sense. You cannot abolish something that isn’t there. I will modify what I was saying. I am a libertarian and do not believe that others should dictate to me what I can or cannot think, and I do not wish to impose my thought system upon others. I wish to take a forum like this and present my beliefs to someone like you. It helps me think about what I think about and forces me to focus on different ideas when challenged about different things. Hence, I do not think that something should be “abolished” as it were. I would like to see religion and mythology disappear because mankind chooses to move beyond this silliness.
Regards
Dave
Hi Matt
” Or maybe those other mythologies were based on the same “God” and people were fumbling confused and in the dark trying to make sense of this force greater than themselves and each religion had a piece of the puzzle. ”
Actually, there are more religions out there that do not even have a god than there are religions that have one or more gods. At any rate, why did you choose christianity of all the possible religions out there, if there are other religions who’s god is likely the same one? Do you feel that christianity is the epitome of religious evolution so far? Which christianity by the way?
Regards
Dave
It was simply a suggestion since your arguement was stated in a way that it was clearly an attempt to devalue the religion since it is a mish-mash of other religions. I didn’t really have a particular sect of Christianity in mind when I mentioned that since many people tend to expand upon things and twist them to their own agenda. Different people believe different things, and that applies even to Christians. The bible itself is and old book and really outdated in many ways. Many people do acknowledge that, but try to work from the key moral points in it. What was acceptable and inapprorpriate than is not now. I think almost all Christians can agree upon that since you know… I think many women go to church while having their period and also aren’t getting stoned all the time, along with all kinds of slave issues and the like.
As a result I use the term Christian pretty liberally and don’t really consider the superficial sects all that important. And I’m not the only one, there is an article I found that pretty much all christians don’t believe the Bible outright. So anyway to sum it up I don’t think which Christianity really matters.
Yes Matt.
That is actually my intention. To show that christianity or any of the Abrahamic dogmas are really, at their root, all the same. They are irrational beliefs that are in the same category as the Greek and Nordic gods, unicorns, and all beliefs in the supernatural. You are also correct in that it doesn’t matter which brand of christianity you choose.
Regards
Dave
I do agree with you that many children are indoctrinated to Christianity. While I do find presenting beliefs an admirable quality I do not find that having them forced on you is such a great quality. However many people I know “escaped” Christianity for that very reason, it was forced onto them and they rebelled. That alone is something to consider.
As for the logic thing, well no one said to ignore logic to believe religion. It is possible for them to coexist.
Act like a troll, expect to be treated like a troll.
Hey Dave, it seems you may be overstating the proposition that atheism is the default state. Being agnostic (i.e. not having a position one way or the other) is perhaps more qualified for that role. While some consider agnostics to be a subset of atheists, you do not present yourself as not having a position about God and therefore don’t qualify.
The weakest point in the atheistic position is the assertion, implied or explicit as in your case, that the statement “God exists” must be a testable hypothesis. The hypothesis “there is no truth of which the hypothesis for it is not testable” is untestable. There may be things which are true that we have no way of testing and never will. It is not within the range of science to determine one way or the other. The real question is whether or not if there is such a truth can one know that it is true without testing it’s hypothesis? I believe the answer is self-determined, i.e. if one knows something to be true that there is no way of proving, then the answer is: yes one can know something that is untestable; if not, then one just doesn’t know.
The theist’s position is that God does exist and they know that God exists because He does. I believe that if the sun died tomorrow I would not have much longer to live. I don’t think that the truth of that depends on what I believe, I believe I believe it because it is so. Now, whether or not I would die is entirely testable and, I believe scientifically defensible, even without having to actually kill the sun to find out if I would die.
The theist’s weakest point is trying to come up with reasons for why they believe God exists. But that doesn’t bear one way or the other as to the actual existence of God. It just makes them look to be bad scientists.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Hey Some Guy,
Maybe it’s not so much an innate belief to be superstitious or religious but rather a necessary stage (or stages) one must go through to get to a rational point of view about reality, much as arithmetic or algebra are necessary stages in mathematics one must go through to learn calculus.
I’m no expert but those who study human development from infancy through early adulthood find that it is fairly universal for all humans to develop through set stages of understanding and relating to the world in the same order and at the same rate, relatively speaking. One description of this development path that is widely agreed upon is: archaic to magic (belief in spiritual powers contained in physical objects and the ability to spiritually manipulate the real world through actions: rain dances, prayer etc) to mythic (traditional, fundamentalist belief in the Bible, Koran, Torah/Talmud etc.) to rational (belief in scientific materialism) to post-rational (pluralistic belief that all people’s beliefs are true). If this is so then all people grow up believing in something (Santa, the Easter bunny, Jesus, Magic Johnson etc.) before they can become rational scientific materialists.
But this then would be innate to understanding and development not an innate belief of humans, just like geometry is inherent to mathematics even though we are not born with an innate ability to do geometry, and so to be able to do calculus one must develop the ability to do geometry along the way.
Spirituality like mathematics must be developed and I believe that that development is ongoing: forever evolving to new heights of understanding.
Respectively,
Dylan.
Hey Erra,
I like much of what you say and the thoughtfulness and compassion that you demonstrate in your words. To answer the question “How can an atheist be afraid of God if they don’t believe in Him?, the issue is not whether or not one believes. Just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t make Him not exist any more than a theist believing in God makes God exist. He either does or doesn’t. If He does exist then even though you don’t believe in Him you could still fear him because He would exist in you. So to a theist, by definition He does exist, and therefore, (to those who believe in a punitive God), you do fear Him.
Also, I would argue that religion should have some place in medicine and education. In medicine, even a scientist would admit that placebos are one of the most effective medicines to prescribe, even though the only reason they work is because people believe they will. Given that observable phenomenon, superstition or religion could possibly be even more effective. As far as education, religion is an important part of our historical heritage and current culture and so, in that sense at least, should be part of the curriculum.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Hey Peter,
Some children of atheist parents revolt and become religious. Does that mean they were indoctrinated?
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Hey Chris, I thought I’d respond to just one of BAG’s question’s that you responded to instead of the whole list so that I can go into it a little deeper. I’m somewhat reluctant to follow the lead of someone who chooses such an apparently disrespectful title as she does but I think the point she makes about how pervasive and enduring the faith in God is deserves a little more scrutiny. As you say there are many reasons to be drawn or pushed into believing a religious doctrine, including: comfort, fear, upbringing, tradition etc., but the same goes for atheism, atheists seem to find comfort in believing: the only truths are those backed with empirical fact, the only valid hypothesis’s are those that are testable; atheists seem to find the notion of Hell or a punishing God something to fear (or rather the lack of belief in God removes them from having to have that fear, note the numerous proclaimed atheists on this blog who say they aren’t afraid of God because they don’t believe in God); and many atheists have been brought up as atheists as well as an atheistic tradition being established. Since most people of faith live many decades they have lots of time to observe, contemplate, examine and question their beliefs, and because many of them who do are intelligent, educated, honest people, why do so many continue to believe? Is there, perhaps, some deeper, more profound experience that supercedes these more primitive motivations?
Faith was not originally about “belief”, which is a misinterpretation caused by the filter of empirical materialism which cannot conceive of any truth existing which has not been proven and verified with empirical observations, so any such “truth” is merely a false belief. Faith originally referred to the notion of ‘fidelity’ as in ‘being faithful to one’s spouse’. The point being to be faithful to God, which at it’s most fundamental is the existence of God itself. The test of faith has been to maintain one’s faith despite contrary beliefs and the argument against faith at all.
I don’t think that that (the prevalence and endurance of faith) is reason enough to believe in God, but I do think it points to the existence of something that, if one opens oneself to the possibility of, one will find to be very profound.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Hey Ron,
You say “But it wasn’t atheism that caused him or others to do it”. By the same token it wasn’t a belief in God that caused the crusades, Islamic militarism, or terrorism. Sure they do it in the name of God, but the Hitlers and Stalins do it in the name of reason. The real cause is human greed, revenge, pride, anger, fear etc.
We should all be like May who loves science, is proud of being a muslim and expresses more honesty, more humanity, and more wisdom than anyone else on this thread. If she isn’t a great case for the value of faith I don’t know what is.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Hey Chris,
First of all, thank you for being such a big person as to start this blog, have such a diversity of opinions and attitudes expressed on it and continue to respond to the dialogue.
About the Mormons and the bibles in hotel rooms: one thing that atheists don’t seem to see is how their view of things is shaped by their fundamental assumption: God does not exist. If God doesn’t exist then the only reason to proselytize is to keep people from believing what they believe. I know it is a subtle distinction, and hard to express logically in words, but if God does exist then it would be an incredible gift to give someone that awareness. I believe that is, in part, why people want to share the gospel etc. They have a profound experience of the sacred and they believe once you experience it you will be glad you did. There are many other less noble motivations and it is hard to filter those out when dealing with evangelism but it exists nonetheless and is easy to miss if your assumption is ‘God does not exist’.
Also, Jessie does seem to not be reading your posts, but maybe what is being revealed in that disconnect is a deeper issue: atheism is by definition aimed at religion (a-theism). Religion, although descriptively often actively opposed to people not having belief, it is not by definition so. It is by definition aimed at being for God, not against anything else. So often I think, religious people feel attacked just by having someone say they are atheist. The word in and of itself is a kind of challenge and I think it is somewhat disingenuous for atheists not to take that into account when they engage with theists. Not that I think theists are any better at respecting other peoples’ opinions.
Respectively,
Dylan.
Dylan,
Hi. I will say that I see absolutely no value in having epistemological beliefs that do not correspond to a truly honest evaluation of the evidence. In fact, I think this is something that is quite bad for society, as it represents a departure from reality-based thinking – which is more likely to lead to bad decisions than good ones, and it creates impasses in discussion. It seems to be that morality is and stems from making genuine effort to always be honest, rational and give as much value to the wellbeing of others as to oneself. Faith/dogma – or belief without evidence – is dishonest, irrational and selfish, as it puts one’s own valued beliefs over honesty, reason and fairness and is a ready enabler of hypocrisy, as no one would want others to be dishonest and unreasonable.
There are surely things other than religious faith that cause behaviours that are inconsiderate to the wellness of others, to considerations of equality, to reason and honesty, and so on. There’s no doubt about this. But I don’t know if it’s arguable that there are not many people out there who truly do believe the things they claim to believe and are driven behaviourally by these beliefs. Sure, their faith does not exist in a vacuum and exists in a broader context of other factors, but that does not mean that when a person cites verses as justifications for their actions that they’re just lying to us. There are people who really do take their religious beliefs seriously – very seriously. To the point where they want their religious community – their vision of it – to fully dominate society.
Regarding Stalin and Hitler and what not. First of Hitler wasn’t an atheist. But regarding Stalin, I’m no expert – not even close. Did he really say that reason suggested his actions were the most prudent? Well, that doesn’t even matter. Anyone can *say* they’re being reasonable. Anyone. It doesn’t mean that they are. And, as we can surely agree, reason is applied with axiomatic starting points. A starting point that I support is a genuine respect for wellness and equality for all.
Hey Ron,
Thanks for responding.
So, you say “I see absolutely no value in having epistemological beliefs that do not correspond to a truly honest evaluation of the evidence.” and “[this is]a departure from reality-based thinking.” To me this seems unscientific. There is no evidence that there are not real things for which there is not and cannot be evidence for. By definition there wouldn’t be; so the most honest scientific stance to take would be to say: we don’t know and cannot know scientifically (empirically) if there exists truths that have no evidence.
To me the value of having a belief lies in whether or not the subject of the belief actually exists or not, not in whether or not there is evidence for it. Einstein believed in the theory of relativity before he had evidence for it. He worked it out in his imagination and mathematically. Many did not believe his theory at first. However, since then, much of his theory has been tested and verified with empirical fact. So now it is accepted in the broad scientific community as fact. But it was true, anyway, before it was verified and Einstein’s belief in it’s truth was his greatest contribution to science. Darwin’s theory of evolution has also been verified, although there are still large gaps in the fossil record to validate it’s truth. These gaps are not considered a disproof of his theory though, because it is predictable, given the number of species that probably existed and the low probability that any single member of a species would ever be preserved well enough to be found in the fossil record, that large gaps would exist. Evolution is taught as fact in schools because very little of the data we have contradicts the theory and no other theory fits the evidence as well. String theory predicts alternate universes. Do they exist? No-one knows. So far there is no evidence to validate string theory at all. It is just an elegant mathematical model of how reality might be that works better than any other model yet constructed. Maybe we will get empirical verification of string theory’s truth. But we may never find out if there actually are alternate universes because there may never be any way to get data from an alternate universe. So most scientists do not consider string theory to be fact. However believing in string theory or believing in alternate universes could have enormous value for science and the furthering of our knowledge of reality.
However the question of God is of an even more special case than any of these examples: whether or not there is or ever will be evidence for the existence of God, many people say they know God exists. The original meaning of faith was not belief but commitment to the truth of-fidelity and loyalty (as in being faithful to your wife). So the question here is: can one know something to be true without having evidence for it? The best I can put it is: science has no way of knowing. So if God exists then it probably matters that one believe in Him and if God does exist and one knows it then one has no reason for evidence. But science, by it’s own terms, should have nothing to say about the existence of God other than: there is no evidence God exists. To conclude that therefore God doesn’t exist is a logical fallacy. To conclude He does is only a logical fallacy if one bases one’s conclusion on evidence, otherwise it is outside of logic and outside of science but not necessarily outside of reality.
As to your comment: “Anyone can *say* they’re being reasonable.” that’s precisely my point: anyone can say they are doing something in the name of God, but we should look to the nature of God and who God is to determine if they are in fact doing so. Many religious people ( I would say most, but I don’t have proof) would say God is loving and compassionate and would never condone the violence and atrocities that have been done in His name. At any rate religion cannot be pigeonholed into being a force for violence in the world. I think most truly thoughtful people can see that there are universal traits of all humans that lead to violence, war and acts of terrorism. The golden rule is an axiom that came out of religion and is duplicated in some form or another in nearly all the great religions today. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Dylan
You have made an error by assuming that A) the fundamental assumption of an a-theist is that “Capital G” God does not exist, and B) believing in said God, or any god is somehow possibly a gift. A-theism is simply lack of belief in theism where theism is a superstition which incorporates gods. It says nothing of the specific god or gods of the Christian, Hindu, Islam, or any number of other superstition faiths. (The Mormon faith has to be one of the more ridiculous notions if you have ever read the history of Joseph Smith and his Golden Tablets by the way). A-theism can be aimed at the belief in gods. But first and foremost it is merely the absence of belief in some god or another. Hence it is why a-theism is referred to as the default state: you are not born with a belief in a superstition, let alone one that has a god or gods as it’s center piece. Therefore you are born a-theist. Quite frankly you are born a-everything. As to how or why believing in the supernatural can possibly be a positive thing in the face of choosing to believe in the natural, observable, and verifiable world … god only knows.
“The word (a-theism) in and of itself is a kind of a challenge…” ..Yes…of course it is. Though it’s hardly disingenuous to say that when someone proposes something that is quite frankly absurd to it’s very core, another might simply say they are having difficulty accepting the facts of the matter.
Regards
Dave
Hi Dave,
I don’t see how I am in error for saying the fundamental assertion of atheism is that God doesn’t exist. As you say “A-theism is simply lack of belief in [any] superstition which incorporates gods.” I get your point that atheism is more general than just not believing in a particular god, but that doesn’t mean that atheism isn’t fundamentally against the belief of any particular god. As has been stated previously in this thread religious people don’t believe in all the gods other than theirs, atheism just takes it one god more. But more importantly you missed my point which was that the assertion that God doesn’t exist( or all gods don’t exist) is not logically or empirically defensible. Logic and evidence merely conclude that the existence of God (or gods) are not provable or demonstrable by evidence. That is good science but it should be left there.
Second I did not, and do not assume that believing in God is a great gift, I merely stated, logically, that if God exists it would be a gift to know that. Your assumption that God doesn’t exist is what keeps throwing you off the train of logic. Logically, maybe God doesn’t exist, but also logically God may exist, so my statement had only to do with that “if”.
If you are born a-everything as you assert, and if God does exist then it would be a huge revelation to discover God. That’s all I’m saying, and in response to Chris, I suggested that atheists seem to have a hard time getting that because they have already skipped to the assumption that God doesn’t exist. That’s the filter through which they perceive reality.
When I made the claim that atheists seem disingenuous I wasn’t referring to their lack of belief in God as you suggest, I was referring to that by saying God doesn’t exist they don’t acknowledge that that in and of itself is an attack on religious belief. Religious people do not attack anyone else simply by expressing their belief in whatever god or gods they believe in, they are merely saying “I believe this”. Atheists, just by saying they are atheists, direct their statement against the belief(s) of others (Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the assertion that there are no deities,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2], Wikipedia), as in “your belief is false”. Obviously many religious people go beyond the mere statement of their own belief denouncing other beliefs or the lack of any belief. But just saying “I’m a Christian or Mormon , Hindi, Buddhist, Jew etc. does not in and of itself refer to the invalidity of any other faith or lack of any faith.
Now there is some debate about the term agnostic where people don’t take a position one way or the other about religion, superstition or God. Wikipedia refers to “weak atheists” as people who have not considered God or religion. However you fit neither of these categories: IE you have obviously considered the notion and, as evidenced by your scorn of the Mormon faith you obviously have a position about it. So I interact with you as an atheist of that type, not one who just doesn’t believe in superstitions which incorporate gods.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Hello Dylan
“I don’t see how I am in error for saying the fundamental assertion of atheism is that God doesn’t exist.” ….
An a-theist MAY assert such a thing. A person who holds a religious view based on Animism or Ancestor worship may ALSO hold such a view. The point is that a belief in a god or gods is just a part of a particular type of superstition that some people hold. If others don’t hold that view, either by not knowing about it or not caring about it, they are asserting nothing. Therefore you are in error in saying that it is a fundamental assertion, which presupposes it is an integral or very important part of a-theism.
“But more importantly you missed my point which was that the assertion that God doesn’t exist( or all gods don’t exist) is not logically or empirically defensible.” …
This is not a point in your favor. It is the same as saying ANY assertion that something cannot exist is not logically or empirically defensible … which I, and most a-theists, would agree with. You can come up with any hypothesis you wish and I may never be able to prove it is impossible or cannot be true. But unless it has any validity that can have meaning in the real world, it has to be verifiable. Mind you that is obviously my more strict interpretation. Still, no one has to accept your hypothesis as anything more than just that: an idea you have.
I believe I have addressed your second paragraph by the above?
“That’s the filter through which they perceive reality.” I would agree that everyone, through their experiences of life and their personal interpretations of those experiences “filter” their observations. But again, as pointed out above, you don’t have to actively disbelieve in a theistic proposition to be an a-theist. Which means one doesn’t have to have ’skipped to that assumption”. A person may have never heard of theism and this, by default, makes this person an a-theist.
“Religious people do not attack anyone else simply by expressing their belief in whatever god or gods they believe in….” Actually I will disagree with you there. The great mono-theisms that exist now explicitly state that their particular god is the ‘only’ god, and that to worship another god is in many cases worthy of death. Even within say the great theistic religion of Islam, the Sunnis regularly slaughter the Shiites and vice versa because they don’t agree with each other about a particular origin of a sacred text. Some of the worst crimes man commits upon his fellow man are based on religious belief. A-theism as a concept is not, at it’s root, the negation of theism or the opposite even, though it can be. Theism is the proposition. A-theism merely says huh. I don’t buy it. If that is what you consider an attack on theism, you are wrong. If people who buy into theism feel offended or attacked by someone who does not believe, then they have a pretty weak constitution for their belief. Now having said that, I’ll concede that there are many people who openly question, not only those who hold theistic belief systems, but superstitious or supernatural beliefs of any kind. But you don’t see a-theists holding inquisitions where the wholesale slaughter of whole peoples is perpetrated. You don’t see a-theists demanding that people of theistic belief be thrown in jail or tortured for their beliefs.
Dylan. Have you read the history, the anthropological history of Mormonism? Just curious. Joesph Smith was a huckster and convicted criminal in New York in the early 1800 hundreds. This man “created” the religion that is Mormonism. I am an a-theist of the type I am because I have been around for almost half a century and have seen my share of con-men play the poor and hard done by of all they have by selling snake oil. I have far more empathy and sympathy for my fellow man than any of these evangelists. I don’t feed on the sorrows and fears of the meek and down-trodden. I don’t tell people their reward for suffering in this world is in some imaginary afterlife. For the very fact that I DON’T believe in an afterlife makes me appreciate my life here and now, because at least this I CAN see for certain: that my life is the most rarest and valuable of things. And if I feel this way about MY life, others certainly feel as such about theirs, and this is the root of morality within man. The root of the golden rule which is NOT a religious rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Dylan. I do realize I come off sounding arrogant and sometimes offensive. It is because I am passionate about the truth. That I truly believe that the belief in the supernatural is an obstacle to the progress of the human race. And I truly believe that far too many of those who profess to “believe” are the Joseph Smiths and Jim Bakers of the world who take advantage of people in their time of weakness.
I am by no means attacking you personally, though forgive me if I quite naturally question why you think the things you do. And thank you for engaging me. It makes me think about …. things I think about.
Regards
Dave
I would like to correct that paragraph where-in this is stated: “You can come up with any hypothesis you wish and I may never be able to prove it is impossible or cannot be true. But unless it has any validity that can have meaning in the real world, it has to be verifiable.” My apologies. I was watching curling on t.v. and messed that up a bit. It should read ” You can come up with any hypothesis you wish and I may never be able to prove it is impossible or cannot be true. But so what? It is incumbent upon those who provide a hypothesis to establish it’s veracity. I do not have to do it for you, and by not accepting your hypothesis hardly means I am attacking it, though I have every right to do so if it lacks any evidence of integrity.
Regards
Dave
My fellow atheist like me, let’s repeat this until our brains melt:
Everyone in the world is a God fearing person. Those who follow Him are reverent of His power. Those who attack Him are afraid of His greatness.
Everyone in the world is a God fearing person. Those who follow Him are reverent of His power. Those who attack Him are afraid of His greatness.
Everyone in the world is a God fearing person. Those who follow Him are reverent of His power. Those who attack Him are afraid of His greatness.
Everyone in the world is a God fearing person. Those who follow Him are reverent of His power. Those who attack Him are afraid of His greatness.
Everyone in the world is a God fearing person. Those who follow Him are reverent of His power. Those who attack Him are afraid of His greatness.
fucking christian troll.
Hi Dave,
I have a much longer response that I am preparing that I think may be helpful in moving our dialogue forward, but your last response has a few key elements that I thought I would respond to immediately. You say ” It is incumbent upon those who provide a hypothesis to establish it’s veracity.” Why? We are not having a debate in a court of law, this is a dialogue between two people who (seemingly care deeply about a particular subject). If God exists then it would obviously be of great importance to you to determine that truth. If I were standing on train tracks and someone stated to me that a train was coming I would not say to them that the burden of proof was upon them , I would look around to see if I could see if a train was coming and if I found that due to circumstances I could not tell if one was or not I would get off the tracks and wait to see if they knew what they were talking about, I would not risk my life in the interests of scientific knowledge, it would be unnecessary and a waste of my life. It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with whoever cares about the truth.
I do not care, and have never implied that I do, whether or not you choose to believe in God. You do seem to care that I or anyone else might. You do not seem content merely to not believe, but seem to need to make a big deal about those who do. I do think that the declaration of one’s faith is of great worth and deserving of a concomitant amount of respect.
Secondly you say “…by not accepting your hypothesis hardly means I am attacking it, though I have every right to do so if it lacks any evidence of integrity.” I am not sure what the phrase ‘evidence of integrity’ means to you but I assume it is similar to your statements about the need for hypothesis’s to be testable. Again I do not find any logical or empirical basis for this position. I think it is fine, effective and of great value that science says it is devoted to those and only those hypothesis’s that are testable. I do not think it is either valid, scientific or of value to say that ALL truth is testable. there easily may be truths that are not, as you yourself have just acknowledged. The point for me seems to be not whether or not a truth has been proven but whether or not it IS SO, which is why I would get off the tracks rather than wait for someone to prove a train was coming. If it wasn’t, no biggie, if it was, my bad for not listening to what they were saying. Proof has no place in that scenario. So the burden of proof is irrelevant. I’m more concerned with living than some arbitrary protocol for how to discuss an issue.
If I have knowledge of God and that knowledge has great value to me, and if I think you might find great value in sharing that knowledge I might take it upon myself to try to let you know what it is that I know that I find immensely beneficial. If you choose not to hear what I say, so be it. But if you choose to argue with me about what I know and find to be of such value then I will try to explain what it is I believe and why your arguments don’t have any weight on the actuality of my experience. If God IS SO then evidence one way or the other or complete lack of it is not pertinent to the discussion. If you need evidence to be able to respond to anything then you limit yourself to only those things that can be empirically demonstrated. That seems wise on first glance since you will obviously eliminate all false truths, but what about the truths that exist that have not or cannot be proven? Are they all inconsequential issues of no urgency? I doubt it and therefore choose not to limit myself to proof as a basis for action in my life. Often I have found that what I was so sure of , I knew I knew, was wrong and the advice of others who saw past the limited view I had was the saving factor for me in my process.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Hello Dylan
You quote me “It is incumbent upon those who provide a hypothesis to establish it’s veracity.”, and then ask WHY? adding “We are not having a debate in a court of law, this is a dialogue between two people who (seemingly care deeply about a particular subject)”.
I can only say that the principle is still the same. If there exists a dialogue between two parties where one party makes an extraordinary claim, it is not incumbent upon the party who hears the claim to accept it as any more than a possibility. I care deeply about truth. In your style of argument I will assume you mean you care deeply about your god, and we disagree on what ‘Truth’ is. Now when I make a statement like that you will wish to verify semantics with me to ensure we are both in agreement about what ‘Truth’ is. So let’s do that. I’ll give you my definition of what truth is as I see it generally used by people when they are asking someone if they are speaking the truth. Then you give me your definition, and perhaps an example like what I will do. To me, the truth is verifiable. If you tell me you can whistle in polyphony and I don’t believe you, you can establish the truth of the matter by doing so…. by showing me. If you claim the earth is undergoing global warming and I don’t believe you, you can show me the evidence to the best of your ability and I will either accept your evidence or withhold my judgement until I see more convincing evidence, or come to understand the science of the matter better. Truth is verifiable. Truth has evidence. Truth can be backed up by telling me how you come to believe in something, so I can follow the same path you did and see for myself that it is true. Truth is what science seeks. Truth is what is real and perceptible by the senses we have available to us. Truth is something that can be verified because it deals with the real world, and with things that have meaning, or affect the real world. If something has meaning and affects the real world, you can show me this… to establish the truth of the matter.
I’ll skip your “if God exists…” sentence for a moment to attend to the more relevant words you write after: “If I were standing on train tracks and someone stated to me that a train was coming I would not say to them that the burden of proof was upon them , I would look around to see if I could see if a train was coming and if I found that due to circumstances I could not tell if one was or not I would get off the tracks and wait to see if they knew what they were talking about, I would not risk my life in the interests of scientific knowledge, it would be unnecessary and a waste of my life. It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with whoever cares about the truth.”
If you are standing on train tracks, then there exists the real possibility that a train (big buggers….hard to miss) may be on said tracks and your life was in peril. You have seen train tracks before. You know as truth that train tracks are laid down so that trains may travel upon them. You know as truth that if you get hit by a train the results are going to be less than desirable. It would be a waste of your life NOT to use the truth you know about this (which is a scientific truth because it is quite verifiable) and not look around if someone said a train was coming. Now back to your sentence: “If God exists then it would obviously be of great importance to you to determine that truth.”… I can only think you are very presumptuous in knowing this. What do you know of your god that you can claim this? How did you come to know this? How have you managed to verify the truth of what was told to you about your god by other human beings, or have you first hand experience with this god?
I don’t care whether you believe in a god either Dylan. I don’t necessarily agree with you that because you have a superstitious belief that you deserve some sort of respect, but quite frankly if you kept this superstitious belief to yourself it wouldn’t really matter would it? The problem began long ago though when people were actually put to death for questioning religious beliefs. Even today people kill each other over religion, and promote the killing of others. Creationists are trying their damndest to undermine the educational system and bring back religion to schools where my children go to learn. So don’t get all uppity because, if you say you believe in a god, I ask why. I really don’t understand how you can expect NOT to be asked why.
I see we come back to what is essentially semantics in your next paragraph: “I do not think it is either valid, scientific or of value to say that ALL truth is testable. there easily may be truths that are not, as you yourself have just acknowledged. The point for me seems to be not whether or not a truth has been proven but whether or not it IS SO, which is why I would get off the tracks rather than wait for someone to prove a train was coming.”
No, you would get off the tracks because if a train was coming, THAT would be verifiable. And you don’t hold enough faith in your god to risk remaining there. A truth that IS SO, is verifiable, and can be proven.
You then go on:” If I have knowledge of God and that knowledge has great value to me, and if I think you might find great value in sharing that knowledge I might take it upon myself to try to let you know what it is that I know that I find immensely beneficial.” The knowledge you claim to have would be the most incredible thing you could share with the whole of the world, if indeed KNOWLEDGE is what it was. But it’s not. You have not EXPLAINED anything. You have not explained how you came across this knowledge or what it takes for you to believe in something, why you believe in your particular god, or how it is that you have come to any conclusions whatsoever. Your very next sentence: “But if you choose to argue with me about what I know and find to be of such value then I will try to explain what it is I believe and why your arguments don’t have any weight on the actuality of my experience.” I am all ears. I DO choose to discuss with you about what you “KNOW”. What is the actuality of your experience? How do you KNOW things? Explain how it is that you, Dylan, know anything to begin with and then enlighten me on how you come to know the more important stuff, like your god, after. I mean, humour me at least.
You say:” If God IS SO then evidence one way or the other or complete lack of it is not pertinent to the discussion. “ Please explain what that means. If god IS SO, then there must be evidence for this. Why on earth would you try having a discussion with someone about anything if you cannot argue your point of view? In any discussion where two people have opposing views it is always best to give the other person something to think about. It is always best to explain why you hold the views you do so that the other person can mull it around and decide for themselves. You cannot say, as if it is something that benefits your point of view, that your view cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven then it’s pretty much all in your mind and can have no real meaning in the real world where people exist.
As I mentioned in another post, I’ve been around for a while and yea verily have I made my share of mistakes and false assumptions. But that is not the case here. In the early days I made no assumption whatsoever. I kept hearing through my youth about religions. I even went to a catholic primary school. I didn’t assume there was or wasn’t a god. It just never meant anything to me. When I grew older I started to question why people believed in capital G god, and then realised that there were other religions that had their own gods. Then on top of that I found out that there were religions that didn’t even have gods! As it stands now I have pretty much lumped all belief in supernatural things together, in other words all those things that have no basis in reality … or those things that somehow people believe are real, but they do not actually interact with the real world so as that you might be able to verify it. So I have an assumption now. Your god probably does not exist. Your supernatural beliefs seem to be at odds with the natural world that we live in.
As an aside, I have had my share of discussions with the superstitious. I am not by any means trying to convert you by explaining to you how and why I think what I do. You have shown already that you are not interested in reason. My dialogue with you has two main reasons. 1st, it gives me an opportunity to practice my debating skills, and present, in a rational and understandable way the reasons I have for believing what I do to others, and 2nd it gives me a chance to think about the things I think about. If you don’t address ANY of my questions, and I don’t expect that you can truly address them, perhaps you could at least answer me this: If you and I are having a debate in a public forum, what information or truths are you giving to explain your side of the debate, so that those who follow along might choose to agree with you?
Regards
Dave
Pls see reply
Hi Dave,
So you do not seem to see my way of putting things as “reasoning”. I myself am having a hard time recognizing any valid logic in either your responses to my statements/questions or your own propositions. This may be an exercise in futility for us. I appreciate your recognition that semantics and definitions may be part of the disconnect between us and especially thank you for giving me some of your definitions. I will try to do the same for you here. This was to be the heart of the response I was preparing that I referred to previously, but now that you have jump started that process I will pick up from your words.
But first I did find something you said to be of particular use as a possible opportunity for us to break through the impasse we seem to be up against: you ask me to tell you how I know things. First I will have to acknowledge that I have a different definition of knowledge and truth than you do…and I am at a loss, for the moment, as to what words I should use to talk about what I am talking about when I say things like: “If God exists” without using the words ‘truth’ or ‘knowledge’ since your definitions do not apply to how I describe my meaning(s) in this area. So, if we take it to be understood that our interpretations of those words are different, for the moment (until I can come up with alternative words that mean what I am meaning), I would like to present and discuss the words of another person as a away of explaining to you ‘how I know things’.
Rene Descartes spoke the famous words “I think, therefore I am”. In logical terms this is a tautology, meaning that it’s logically based veracity derives from accepting it’s own assumption. IE if the assumption is true then the statement is true. But Descartes doesn’t say “if I think…”, he says “I think…”. So one such as you might ask “how does he know that he thinks?”. But this is the very paradox that Descartes is intimating by making it an assertion, rather than a logical proposition: knowing and thinking are part and participle of the same “truth”: if one knows then one does think, and if one thinks then one does know, Descartes is suggesting that it is useless and meaningless to question whether one thinks. One cannot question, one cannot ask “how does one know” without thinking, therefore thinking is a given and therefore if one thinks then one is thinking and if one is thinking then one IS. He is suggesting that the one undeniable tautology is that if one is ______, (fill in the blank), then one IS. Because to consider the veracity of anything is to consider and if one CONSIDERS then one must BE. This is pointing to what I mean when I say “I know God exists”.
Just as “I think, therefore I am” is necessarily true without proof, without verification, and without being testable (IE verifiable by an independent objective observer outside of myself), so is my experience of the existence of God. I do not think that I can prove that God exists, I do not think that by telling you I experience God that then you will too, but I do think that the experience of God is available to you if you are willing to consider things (such as “I think, therefore I am”) that are not verifiable, have no explanation, and cannot be demonstrated with evidence.
Another example would be the discussion about free will vs determinism. If we assume determinism is the truth about the way reality is (everything is the result of causes prior so that if all things were known it would be possible to predict with 100% accuracy everything that is yet to occur and there would be no free will involved to alter that determination), then it makes no difference to discuss the matter and we either will or we won’t based on causes and circumstances beyond our control. If we assume that free will exists then it absolutely makes a difference what we conclude about free will vs determinism because we can act on that knowledge to great advantage to ourselves. My point is that since it doesn’t matter what we conclude if everything is predetermined, but it absolutely does matter if free will exists, that then we may as well assume that free will does exist and act accordingly.
This is my same argument to those who wish to discuss the existence of God logically: if God doesn’t exist it doesn’t matter what you believe, the only things that will matter is what entails on the material plane which one can respond to just as easily whether or not one believes in a spiritual plane. However if God does exist and there is a spiritual plane to consider also, and especially if the meanings and truths of that plane are more important ultimately to the fulfillment of existence, then it does matter absolutely whether or not one has knowledge of that.
However I don’t think you can settle the issue logically. I think you have to have a personal internal experience of the existence of God, just as Descartes had of himself thinking, to really meaningfully settle it for yourself. “I think therefore I am” is not logically provable but undeniably true IF one CONSIDERS it’s veracity.
As far as the material world is concerned I believe absolutely in scientific fact. I subscribe to Discover magazine, The National Geographic and The Smithsonian. When I receive them I read them immediately front to back because I am very interested in learning more about what science knows and is discovering. I believe in the theory of evolution, I believe in the theory of relativity, I believe in quantum theory, (though admittedly I have a hard time understanding it, I accept that people smarter and better informed than I know what they are talking about). I am intrigued by the possibility of string theory’s validity and eagerly await the possibility that evidence of it’s application to the actual world may soon be demonstrated. None of this has any bearing at all to the validity of my experience of God in my own understanding. God’s existence exists for me on the spiritual plane and the decisions and actions I take with respect to God’s existence I take on the spiritual plane. The words I use to describe these actions and decisions are vague and flimsy from a argumentative point of view but I know no better words to use. These are things like: humility, honor, integrity, love, forgiveness, compassion and etc. These terms are very subjective and have no meaningful empirically defined existence in the material world, they either exist as meaningful and actionable realities for one or they don’t. It is a very personally derived sense of meaning and truth that cannot be debated in a rational, objective theater of discourse. The only thing that can be meaningfully debated is that they are possible and therefore deserve respect and attention.
So to try and define for you my sense of Truth and Knowledge: To me there is truth and there is fact, I define fact exactly the way you defined truth, and I define truth as being all that is that cannot be measured, verified or proven (IE all non-factual existence). Now to you the set of all things that are that cannot be measured, verified or proven has no members, while for me it not only has members but the members of this set are the most important to my experience of life. Similarly I define information to be equivalent to factual observations, while knowledge is awareness of truth, IE any or all of those things that exist that cannot be measured, verified or proven. Again I cannot prove that truth and knowledge exist as I have defined them, but then neither can you prove they do not. All I am arguing is that the proposition that they may exist is valid.
If you remember back to the beginning of our discussion, I was maintaining to Chris’s post that she and atheists in general are being disingenuous when they claim to be atheists and wonder why theists feel attacked. I am not questioning the right of atheists to question the validity of faith based beliefs, I am not saying that it is wrong to ask “does God exist?”, I am merely proposing that atheism is by and of itself an assertion that theists are wrong. Again, I hear and understand your meaning when you define atheism as “having no belief about God or superstition one way or the other” and see that as a logical possibility. You say: “If others don’t hold that view [belief in god or gods], either by not knowing about it or not caring about it, they are asserting nothing.” However you fail to qualify for membership in the set of people who ‘don’t know about it or don’t care about it’, and I assert that that set is insignificantly small and certainly non-existent on this blog or thread. Since there are many different valid definitions for ‘atheist’ I suggest that you should define your atheism by your statements about religion: “If it cannot be proven then it’s pretty much all in your mind and can have NO REAL MEANING in the real world where people exist.”, “when someone proposes something [religious superstition]that is quite frankly ABSURD TO ITS VERY CORE, another might simply say they are having difficulty accepting the facts of the matter.” , “The Mormon faith has to be one of the more RIDICULOUS notions”, “the ABSOLUTE BLASPHEMY that is christianity.”, “I WOULD LIKE TO SEE RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY DISSAPEAR because mankind chooses to move beyond this silliness.”(words in caps my emphasis). I could go on, but I think these are representative enough of your words about religion/God/superstition to show factually, empirically that you are not the kind of atheist who doesn’t know about or care about faith based beliefs, theism or any form of superstition. So I choose to treat you as the kind of atheist who does know about God and does care about the proposition that God exists and I stand by my assertion that declaring yourself as an atheist is in and of itself an attack on theism and therefore it is disingenuous to wonder why theists feel attacked by atheists. (I would also like to point out that you fit a common definition of atheism given in dictionaries etc.: “the explicit view that there are no deities,[3] or the rejection of theism as being immoral, meaningless, incoherent, unwarranted, or false.[4][5] Wikipedia)
To conclude I would like to point out where and how in the last response you gave, your logic fails the worst, and you fail to understand me the most. First you present the train scenario I gave as being about whether or not one should base one’s actions on truth based knowledge, rather than being about who the burden of proof falls upon as I intended. I was not arguing that one should not apply one’s awareness of truth to the situation, in fact I was arguing the exact opposite: that one should use one’s awareness and ability to observe truth (as you define truth), but if that fails in the moment to ascertain whether or not a train is coming, the burden of proof does not fall upon the person claiming a train is coming, it falls upon the one standing on the train tracks, the one to whom the truth of the matter actually matters. The fact that you fail to comprehend this point is a little concerning to me. Would you, in truth, stand there and wait to have the person prove their claim, since they were the one making the assertion, or would you conclude that it was in your best interest to find out for yourself that a train was indeed coming and get off the track? On who would you place the burden of proof in that scenario : I venture to say that you would not put it on the person making the claim until you yourself had ascertained the veracity of that statement, IE you yourself would bear the burden of proof even though you were not the one making the claim.
Secondly you ask “Why on earth would you try having a discussion with someone about anything if you cannot argue your point of view?” If I climbed to the top of Mt. Everest I might come back and tell someone that the view from the top is more incredible than any photo or description could ever convey. If they don’t believe me it’s not a point I would want to argue, I would just say that it was so for me, if they don’t believe it they can go find out for themselves, if they are unwilling to do that then it’s their choice what to believe and I would leave it at that. But the most satisfying relationships in my life are with people who are generally willing to take my word for something like that and I get much satisfaction from engaging people in conversations that I cannot argue but nonetheless are meaningfully true for me and worth sharing. To me the ability to argue a point that I wish to make has far less importance to me than the actual meaning of what it is that I wish to express when choosing my conversations and this goes also for those that I choose as friends.
Thirdly you say “Now back to your sentence: “If God exists then it would obviously be of great importance to you to determine that truth.”… I can only think you are very presumptuous in knowing this.” So the illogical part is that I did not say I knew this, I said “If God exists…” There is nothing presumptuous in that proposition and the part where you fail to respond to what I was saying is that you don’t respond to the possibility of if God does exist as I presented. As has been shown before and agreed upon by both of us the premise “God exists” cannot be disproved so logically one must consider the possibility that God does exist. You may feel confident in your position that God does not exist, but that is just your opinion, a presumption you make without evidence or proof. You are entitled, I don’t even think that that is an unintelligent or wrongheaded position to take. I do, however think it is both unintelligent and wrongheaded to assert that believing in God is stupid or nonconstructive.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Internet trolls is my reasoning. So for example a post along the lines of ‘Make me’ would simply be ignored.
Not everyone in the world is a god fearing person. Those who follow him are afraid of his imagined power. Those who don’t believe in him are usually right.
You take yourself pretty seriously don’t you? I’d like to think you were grown up enough to be able to have a mature discussion, instead you have me shaking my head and thinking ‘you poor sob.’ If that’s the way you want to act, go ahead. I welcome it. All it does is show you are incapable (corrected spelling) of handling non-religious issues.
Not everyone in the world is a god fearing person. Those who follow him are afraid of his imagined power. Those who don’t believe in him are usually right.
If you’re so easily wound up then you make yourself an easy target.
You don’t think maybe such comments are out of line?
hummmm, that was s joke. I’m not an easy target , I was mocking the christian troll
And what do you think people will think of atheists when they read such comments?
That some of us may be trolls.
Exactly. You act this way, you lose all credibility.
Hi Dylan
Yes, we seem to have differing views as to what is rational, or logical. I have a philosophy steeped in what has been coined ‘Rational Objectivism”. There are those out there who will shudder because of the Ayn Rand or Libertarian relationship. and I’ll be up front in saying that, though I am my own person and not Ayn Rand, I do agree with many of her propositions, and, yes I am probably a libertarian, but don’t you tell me what that means. Ask me first, and I’ll tell you what it means to me before you choose to judge me. As to what Rational Objectivism means or is to me: it means that the human being is an entity with a specific definable nature. Man has very specific requirements for his survival that are based in the physical world: he needs water, food, and air. His livelihood depends not only on attaining these things on a day to day basis, but he must also avoid becoming food or otherwise perishing due to some ‘thing’ of the real world, be it cold weather, or a falling tree or what have you. He observes the world around him the only way he can, with his physical senses. His physical senses can only perceive the natural world around him. If he is to survive he must learn from his senses the things that are good for his survival as opposed to the things that are bad for his survival. We can’t even begin to think about Descartes until we have dealt with this.
From the very beginning we have had to deal with the real world. We learned to make fire. We learned we could cook our food and keep warm with fire. We learned that if we put our hand in the fire it could harm us. Here we learned some of our first truths. The Objective in a situation like this was to take the knowledge of what we had learned, take the truths and stay warm and eat cooked food. What would be irrational would be to stick our hand in the fire. Hence from the very beginning we looked at the real world around us and observed what it did and we acted or re-acted accordingly. Rational decisions kept us alive. Observing the real world was our way of putting things together to build knowledge. This knowledge is what is known as things that are true.
Anyways. Back to our specific discussion. You bring up Descartes and his “I think therefore I am “ and somehow come up with “Descartes is suggesting that it is useless and meaningless to question whether one thinks.” I disagree with this assertion; Descartes says nothing of the sort. He merely points out the relationship between thinking and awareness. If you are ‘thinking’, and you are aware of ‘knowing you are thinking’, then you are self aware by definition. Then you suggest of me “So one such as you might ask “how does he know that he thinks?”.”
Well no, I would not ask this. You posed the question wrong in relation to the philosophical position you bring up. I might ask “How does he know WHAT he thinks”……. but THAT he thinks is self evident. And then you get a bit slippery and suggest this notion that knowing and thinking is the same thing. It is not. “Knowing” things means nothing if there is no context in which to know OF things. There has to be something of ‘things’ to KNOW ABOUT. You cannot KNOW things just because you have a capacity for thought. There has to be something that you as a human being can relate to before you can think about it. The human being is equipped to interpret the natural world about him with his five senses. He cannot “know” of things beyond what these senses can provide.
The next part of your next paragraph is lost on me: “if one knows then one does think, and if one thinks then one does know, Descartes is suggesting that it is useless and meaningless to question whether one thinks.” As I stated, I believe you are incorrect with this assumption. This is not what Descartes is implying at all. You are setting up the notion that just because one thinks, one therefore KNOWS. You continue down this irrational path with “Because to consider the veracity of anything is to consider and if one CONSIDERS then one must BE. This is pointing to what I mean when I say “I know God exists”.
Because you have misinterpreted the meaning, It points to no such thing Dylan.
You continue “Just as “I think, therefore I am” is necessarily true without proof….”.
Well this is again a fundamental error. “I think, therefore I am” is necessarily true WITH proof. The proof is that you are thinking it. How much more proof could you possibly want? So of course this invalidates where you assume later that I might experience your god if I was willing to consider your misunderstanding of Descartes. …………
Ok, I REALLY don’t know what to make of this fabrication: “If we assume determinism is the truth about the way reality is (everything is the result of causes prior so that if all things were known it would be possible to predict with 100% accuracy everything that is yet to occur annd there would be no free will involved to alter that determination)”…
Who in the heck assumes that? I certainly don’t. Reality is what it is. We figure it out. We do this by OBSERVING reality. We DON’T do it by observing the supernatural, which by definition cannot be observed.
This is your next paragraph with me in brackets: “My point is that since it doesn’t matter what we conclude if everything is predetermined ………..(Dylan…nothing is predetermined, though you can predetermine some things if you UNDERSTAND some things)………….”, but it absolutely does matter if free will exists, that then we may as well assume that free will does exist and act accordingly”………….. (Just because reality precludes that you don’t stick your hand in the fire so you don’t get burned doesn’t mean that everything is predetermined)………….”This is my same argument to those who wish to discuss the existence of God logically: if God doesn’t exist it doesn’t matter what you believe ………….(This is a presumptuous statement. Just because we don’t believe in your fairytale god doesn’t mean that other things we believe in ‘don’t matter, and if your god does exist, all I ask is that you show this to me.) ………………” the only things that will matter is what entails on the material plane which one can respond to just as easily whether or not one believes in a spiritual plane. However if God does exist and there is a spiritual plane to consider also, and especially if the meanings and truths of that plane are more important ultimately to the fulfillment of existence, then it does matter absolutely whether or not one has knowledge of that. ……….(But you do NOT have Knowledge of that. If you do, please share it with us. What do you know of it? What are the ‘qualities’ of this spiritual plane that have you so enamoured that you can’t understand why the rest of us are so blind? What has given you this arrogance to assume you know something that the rest of us don’t, and you don’t have to give me any more proof of this belief than ….. than what???? You give us nothing!)
Next you do a nifty little two step. After saying at the beginning of this particular post that you don’t recognize any valid logic in my reasoning, you then state: “However I don’t think you can settle the issue logically”. Hello?
You follow that up with all sincerity that you believe in the scientific theories of evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics, but then go on about something called a spiritual plane…….. about how this ‘spiritual plane’ somehow effects how you deal with the real world………… I am at a complete loss. Tell me about your spiritual world. What are the qualities of this spiritual world? How does this spiritual world interact with the real world? Does this spiritual world of yours have qualities that can be compared to our real world? (I’m thinking it must have if you can say it’s better, because it has qualities you can compare…………right? You compared them before making this assertion………..right?).
I have to go down quite a bit further to find anything worth discussing. You say “I am merely proposing that atheism is by and of itself an assertion that theists are wrong.” Well you are wrong there by simple definition. But you are correct there in what a theist should believe. As for your following statement about me personally, that I do not qualify as an innocent atheist. By this discussion alone I hope you have “learned” better. In the final analysis I will always give someone the benefit of the doubt and discuss with them something they wish to discuss. But if you are going to try and reason with me that reason is invalid, if you are going to try and invalidate the validity of logic by presenting logical reasons only you can understand, if you are going to tell me about a spiritual world only you personally can understand…. don’t expect anyone who is rational to understand.
If you wish to continue this discussion then you need to get past the notion that in the history of man, there is not only the god you need to put a capital G in front of, but that there are other religions with other gods and other superstitions and that’s all they are. You need to know that I, and most atheist feel sorry for you in the fashion that you have been sold a cure for a disease that’s been s’old to you as a disease’, when it’s merely “the way things are”… something like dandruff and Head n’ Shoulders Shampoo.
I will have to address you point by point again in your next paragraph because it is pretty confusing:
You said: “To conclude I would like to point out where and how in the last response you gave, your logic fails the worst, and you fail to understand me the most. First you present the train scenario I gave as being about whether or not one should base one’s actions on truth based knowledge, rather than being about who the burden of proof falls upon as I intended.” ……………..Forgive me. I fail to see the difference, and you neglect to point it out. We were discussing the meaning of truth and reason were we not? You were making an absurd comparison and I simply pointed this out. Do you not see that your EXPERIENCE of what is potential is based upon the REALITY of what is potential? If you are flying in an airplane with 100 other people and are sitting in the isle with the emergency exit, you don’t open the door because somebody says a train is coming …… right?
You carry on “The fact that you fail to comprehend this point is a little concerning to me. …..(this would only be important to me if I respected you for what you thought, as would be the reverse: if you thought I was a complete goof, a statement like that form me to you would mean little) but you go on…….”Would you, in truth, stand there and wait to have the person prove their claim, since they were the one making the assertion, or would you conclude that it was in your best interest to find out for yourself that a train was indeed coming and get off the track? On who would you place the burden of proof in that scenario : I venture to say that you would not put it on the person making the claim until you yourself had ascertained the veracity of that statemen” .
Damn. …..I may very well have to start inquiring as to whether or not the guy sitting in 14F is an atheist or not. “Excuse me sir…. might it not be possible you are standing on a train track, as opposed to sitting in 14F?)
Really now. You are getting silly. As I pointed out, if one is standing on train tracks, there is then a possibility that there might ACTUALLY be a train there. One comes to learn such things by observing reality by the way. So if I am standing on train tracks and am so absorbed in something that I fail to see the stupidity of my situation, especially if a train actually is coming….. and someone says “Hey, dumb guy… a train is coming!” I wouldn’t sit there and have a debate over the obvious. But this is so far a cry from what you are pretending to claim by this argument. Life is not a set of train tracks where your god is the train. In fact it is so completely opposite. This imaginary fellow you speak of that is warning me of the train CAN SHOW me the train. You cannot show me your god.
You go on “ Secondly you ask “Why on earth would you try having a discussion with someone about anything if you cannot argue your point of view?” …. and your response is: “If I climbed to the top of Mt. Everest I might come back and tell someone that the view from the top is more incredible than any photo or description could ever convey. If they don’t believe me it’s not a point I would want to argue, I would just say that it was so for me, if they don’t believe it they can go find out for themselves, if they are unwilling to do that then it’s their choice what to believe and I would leave it at that”
The thing is Dylan, anyone can climb that mountain you speak of and have the same experience as you. They can interact physically with reality as you have, and come away with the same experience. But, this is not an argument that explains the theist delusion. Not even close. Not even a teensy weensy bit. I don’t understand how you come up with this parallel as if it explains what or how you see things. You carry on like you have seen the most beautiful vista in the world, but everyone has to take your word on how beautiful the views is. If you had indeed climbed Everest, or seen Da Vincis paintings in the Louvre, or put a kayak into the waters by Grise Fiord and paddled amidst the summertime icebergs, you would go to no ends to explain to those you would want to experience the same beauty …. how to do it. But with your god …. again we just have to take your word for it. (And we have to respect you for it too).
You say “But the most satisfying relationships in my life are with people who are generally willing to take my word for something”… and by this I assume you mean “without proof”. This is true for me also but not for the same reasons. I can only think that the people you are satisfied with are pretty wishy washy and will accept as valid any old thing you or anyone says. My standards are higher. I have to come to know a person by interacting with them for a while. I have to judge in my own mind whether or not they appear to have integrity. The people that let me into their lives do so because I too have integrity. They take my word for something because I have demonstrated that my word means something. I don’t value a friendship that is given just for the heck of it. I value a friendship that is earned because I mean something to someone. If you or anyone looks deep within themselves, you’ll find this is true for everyone.
Now the following is how you close, and it’s obviously very fundamental to your position and this is what you and all theists need to ponder:
“. Thirdly you say “Now back to your sentence: “If God exists then it would obviously be of great importance to you to determine that truth.”… I can only think you are very presumptuous in knowing this.” So the illogical part is that I did not say I knew this, I said “If God exists…” There is nothing presumptuous in that proposition and the part where you fail to respond to what I was saying is that you don’t respond to the possibility of if God does exist as I presented. As has been shown before and agreed upon by both of us the premise “God exists” cannot be disproved so logically one must consider the possibility that God does exist.”…………..
I HAVE responded and given you my argument to this before, and as is typical of people with blinders on, you have ignored the premise to my argument.
But now that I think of it, it’s not so much that you ignore the premise of MY argument, as that you ignore the premise of YOUR argument. You assume so many things and can’t get past it and you assume everyone else should think the same way. You assume a god and don’t know why. You assume that this god is good. Why? You assume the belief in him is good. Why? You assume he is necessary and or important…. but you cannot tell me why. You cannot show me how this god of yours interacts with the real world so that anything I do might have meaning to him. And vice versa, that anything he can possibly do has meaning to me. You have looked about yourself awestruck and come up with a train, but forgot about the tracks. You assume the tracks must be there but cannot show them to anyone. You want people to accept as fact something that if it were true would be the most important thing to the existence of mankind….. just because you think it is so. THAT is so simply the most smug, arrogant, and self centered vision a person can possibly have, and people generally dislike this point if view. You say that the a-theist position is an ‘attack’, but you don’t know why. This is why. Because a-theism advanced is a questioning of the moral integrity of a position that holds no position whatsoever, and can only exist by questioning the beliefs of others, as if this is good enough. A belief has to have more than doubt in other beliefs to carry on.
Regards
Dave
Hey Dave,
Well I did not mean to be slippery by saying that if you know you think, I meant it more on the simplistic level of that if you are aware that you know something then you are thinking that, I also gave the example of “consider’ and that if one questions if one is thinking that then one is thinking. I wasn’t making any broad statement of definition about or equivalency of thinking and knowing (although I did put it that way, my bad), just that when one is aware of or questioning if they know something they necessarily are thinking in that moment. The questioning of or the recognition of the awareness of is a function of thinking. The actual awareness is a different matter as you point out.
However you state that “that he thinks is self evident”. So thank you for that. This was the point I was trying to make. But I was afraid to put it into those words because in your words to say something is so one must provide proof or evidence which one cannot do, by definition, for truths that are “self evident”. This is why I said ” one such as you would ask ‘how does he know he thinks” in that argument since Descartes did not say “if I think…” he said “I think…”, which from your statements would need evidence to back up. If I say “the truth that God exists is self evident” you would argue that I had no basis for that claim and ask for evidence or proof. What I was trying to point out is that there may be truths that are self evident (IE need no proof to be stated as true; as you said “how much more proof do you need?”), your concurrence on this point gives me some hope that at least in some instances you agree that things can be “self evident”. And this is why I say that Descartes is implying that to question if one thinks is meaningless, because it is self evident.
Next you go on to say that he does have proof that he is thinking: “the proof is that you are [he is] thinking”. The problem here is that by your own words this does not qualify as evidence or proof. I cannot use my own internal awareness as proof. If I could then I could say to you “God exists” and this is my own internal experience and you would accept it as truth because that is my experience. However you demand objective (observable by others), material (perceived by the senses) evidence of truth to qualify as proof. Descartes or anyone’s thinking is only observable by their own self not available to those outside of their self, and, is not a sensory perception it is a thought perception; ergo the quandary that Descartes was facing (if it was as simple as you make it out to be he wouldn’t have made such a big deal about it and we wouldn’t still be quoting it as a potentially wise thing to say). “the proof is that you are thinking” is equivalent, logically, to “the proof is that God does exist”.
The next thing I would like to go over with you is this thing about me being presumptuous whenever I make a claim in the form of “If…”. You do not seem to understand logical formats. To say “If…” is not to claim that whatever follows the ‘if’ part is true but rather to claim that the part that follows the ‘then’ part is true if and only if what precedes it is true. This is used as a common method for determining what is so. For example: if we know that “all men are red” and we know “Joe is a man”, can we say whether or not Joe is red? One way to find out is to say “If Joe is not red,”, then, since “all men are red”, Joe cannot be a man. But Joe is a man as we already determined, so we say “the statement “Joe is not red’ is false” because it leads to the contradiction “Joe is not a man”. The point being we do not say “If Joe isn’t red” to suggest or claim that he actually isn’t, we say it to determine whether or not it leads to a false statement.
If I start a sentence with the phrase “If every thing is predetermined…” I am not suggesting that that is what I believe nor am I making the claim that every thing IS predetermined, I am merely positing a logical conclusion from making that assumption regardless of whether or not it actually is so. I actually believe in free will which you might have determined from my argument if you had followed it to it’s logical conclusion.
You say you don’t see the difference between determining who the burden of proof is upon and basing one’s actions on truth based knowledge. Part of the disconnect here seems to arise from the fact that you start out by assuming God does not exist so you do not need to base your actions on that possibility and therefore I need to demonstrate proof for you to change your position, whereas in the train scenario you don’t assume that a train doesn’t exist so you wouldn’t expect me to prove the train was coming to change your position on the tracks and get off. My point is that you have no basis to assume God does not exist. The lack of evidence is not a basis rationally objective or otherwise to assume something does not exist. Right now the best physicists in the world cannot say, rationally objectively whether or not alternate universes exist. There is absolutely no empirical data to support that, it is merely a theory or hypothesis. The hypothesis derives from one of the most elegant and comprehensive mathematical models of reality (string theory) yet developed and so many physicists are excited by the possibility that there might be alternate universes and they are looking to see if they can get evidence to support the theory but they do not claim that they know one way or the other. You keep assuming God does not exist without proof and this is where I find your logic faulty. If I came to you from an alternate universe I might tell you that they exist. If you asked me to prove it I might be at a loss as to how even though I knew it was true. I would not doubt my awareness just because I had no proof and I would resent anyone for telling me I was being ridiculous for saying they exist. I would simply say “you cannot prove they are not real so why do you say I am ridiculous for saying they do?”.
If I say I know God exists because I have direct first hand experience of God, you say prove it “how do you know this?”. I tell you how I know it but it is a subjective experience that is not based on sensory experience, much like knowing that I am thinking is, which I cannot prove to you or provide any empirical evidence for since it is not something (my experience) with which you can share. You experience your own thinking and we both assume that each other’s experience is the same as far as thinking itself goes, but I think you will have to experience God for yourself to know God exists. I cannot prove an internal non sensory experience to you even though I have them all the time and know them to be true: I know that I am thinking because it is self-evident. This is the power of communication to me: the ability to add to another’s understanding by sharing one’s own unique experience with someone who is willing to suspend their own point of view as the whole truth and so gain from the interaction.
You do not have to, as you say, “take my word for it” that God exists , you too can experience God for yourself, but to do so you will have to give up the premise that all truth is verifiable only through objective sensory phenomenon. Just as my thinking is true as a self evident phenomenon but I cannot share that experience with you, only report as to its presence, there are other truths that exist that I or anyone can experience but not be able to prove. However they do exist.
Finally, although there are many other points and errors in your logic I am tempted to elucidate, your final statement seems to sum up the whole of our discussion and leaves me with little else to say of any constructive purpose: “A belief has to have more than doubt in other beliefs to carry on.”
Definition of atheism: doubt in other beliefs.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Hello Dylan
Well let’s try something a little different then. We’ll start at the end of your last presentation where you sum it all up … and are wrong again:
“Finally, although there are many other points and errors in your logic I am tempted to elucidate, your final statement seems to sum up the whole of our discussion and leaves me with little else to say of any constructive purpose: “A belief has to have more than doubt in other beliefs to carry on.” Definition of atheism: doubt in other beliefs. Respectfully, Dylan.”
I would prefer you did elucidate instead of avoiding it this way. Especially since you are wrong here:
fundamentally, a-theism is a lack of belief in theism. One does not say “I believe in a-theism”. A-theism itself is not a belief system and therefore is not the vehicle used to prove or disprove the theistic proposition. Science is.
We come to this idea of knowing things and how some things are self evident. This is an interesting discussion if we are talking about consciousness, self awareness, and intelligence. I’m afraid none of these things point to a reason for holding a superstitious belief, never mind a belief in a god. I was tempted to end the sentence “for me”, but then I would be acknowledging that, for someone ELSE, these things DID point to a reason. But I don’t see the connection and that is why I have these debates; to see if someone can provide me with that connection. That reason.
In the middle there you go through a lot to come to this conclusion: “My point is that you have no basis to assume God does not exist.” And again you phrase the argument incorrectly. I have no basis to KNOW your god does not exist. The problem is I have next to nothing in which to assume he does. Not only do I not KNOW a single thing about [him, her, it, that?], the people who claim to be experts on any given god seem to know little more. There’s even the argument that you can’t KNOW this god. Why are there so many flavours of monotheism? Because there are so many different interpretations of what this god is, and what it means in the theistic way of knowing things, how to know her. Which all begs the question: how have you come to the conclusion that some internal private experience you had was a god, never mind any specific god?
Near the end there again you touch on something that is obviously a critical part of your line of thought:
“Just as my thinking is true as a self evident phenomenon but I cannot share that experience with you, only report as to its presence, there are other truths that exist that I or anyone can experience but not be able to prove.”
And I have to disagree yet again with how you’ve tangled this up. This THINKING of your own is self evident TO YOU and I agree with this, but it most certainly IS something you can prove to me. You are doing it right now by carrying on this conversation with me. You do it by interacting with the world around you, because quite frankly, man has lost almost all of whatever instinct he had for survival, and needs to THINK to compensate. He needs to evaluate the real world around him and make critical decisions based on reality. I mentioned above that if we were discussing consciousness and artificial intelligence and I was referring to how does one really know if one is talking to a human being or an artificial construct …. that would be very interesting. But it’s not relevant to this discussion for a number of reasons, one being the field of AI is a very recent phenomenon, and another is though I can’t KNOW for certain I am NOT holding an intelligent conversation with a machine, the chances are unlikely, for in my general experience of conversing with another person things are pretty much the way things have always been whilst having a discussion with another thinking being…… Ok so it’s a little bit relevant.
Regards
Dave
Hello Dylan.
We seem to be having a tough time with the nuances of semantics and it might be best to focus on a specific definition of a specific thing before we carry on. Though it has been gone through ad nauseum in this post, let me clarify the meaning of a-theism. In doing this exercise where I would like you to participate by giving your definition of a-theism, hopefully we can come closer to some mutually agreed upon truths. We’ll get to ‘Truth” later. Let us do it first by hypothetical analogy: let us suppose somebody comes up with the notion that there is a troll under a bridge…or a tea cup in orbit between here and the sun, or a god other than the one you believe in, say the great spaghetti monster… first of all, by mere linguistic definition, if I don’t buy any of these things… you would call me an a-trollist, or an a-teacupist, or an a-GSMist…. Hence the word a-theist. There has to be a word for someone who has never heard of the notion of a god. Call it anything you want. I don’t care. That is what I was to begin with. Then someone came up with the idea of a god and became a theist. I thought this was funny and still do. I am still an atheist. It’s not a belief system. Get over it.
I’d like to ask you about the whole idea of you being here. Why are you here? Is it not to present your reasons for believing the things you do? Is it not to find people who believe the same things you do? It seems to me to be the greatest of contradictions…: how much time you spend rationally debating me, looking for ways to show me I am contradictory, pointing out how you wish to elucidate (make clear) how I am so wrong, and then going on about how reason is not the answer. Perhaps you would like to have this discussion in private?
Regards
Dave
Hi Dave,
I guess I will start at the end of your comments and work my way back. There is so much to respond to but you seemed to end with the most profound questions and start out with the most nit-picky. If I answer your last questions first it might throw light on the rest, therefore: you ask why I spend so much time “rationally debating me, looking for ways to show me I am contradictory, pointing out how you wish to elucidate (make clear) how I am so wrong” and then “go… on about how reason is not the answer.”? This seems to be a major way you are not hearing me. I have never said reason isn’t the answer. I have never said God is the answer. What I have said and what I would like to make very clear with you is: reason is the answer in the material world and God is the answer in the spiritual world. They are not mutually incompatible nor are they contradictory.
You cannot use reason to disprove that God exists because God exists on the spiritual plane where reason does not operate like it does on the material plane. On the material plane the use of reason regarding the existence of God simply leads to the conclusion that one cannot say one way or the other. This is why I get on this blog and respond to comments like yours: because I do care about reason and logic and you make a mockery of them by declaring that God doesn’t exist and use Rational Objectivism as a basis for saying so.
Your argument about my thinking is an example of how you do this. You say that I can prove to you that I am thinking by having an intelligent conversation with you, but that fails the test of Rational Objectivism. You compare our conversation with ones you have had with other ‘thinking’ people. How do you know they were thinking? You have no evidence to show. You say well this is what thinking would look like and AI has only just begun to appear so they must be thinking. That is as weak as me saying that the beauty and complexity of nature is the way it would look if it was intelligently designed and our technology to manipulate genes only came along recently so it must have been done by God. No, to be a rational empirical argument there needs to be objective (observable by others), material (measurable to our physical senses) data that we can use. The problem is there is no physical measurement of thinking. Yes there are chemical and electrical events in the brain which we can correlate to the experience of thoughts but those same events occur in other places, animals , plants, machines, test tubes and petrie dishes etc. where we do not think thoughts are occurring and there is no way to distinguish between those events where there isn’t thinking occurring and those events where thinking is occurring. So the actual physical data do not mean anything, the only way we know that we are thinking when those chemical and electrical events are occurring is we look inside our own self awareness and confirm that it is. However we can only do that for our self. I can not confirm, rationally, objectively, that you think, only that I do. And when I look in my own awareness I can confirm that God exists. So when others say they have looked inside their own awareness and find God I believe them just as when others say that they are thinking. I agree that I cannot prove that God does exist as a rational, objective argument and would be highly skeptical of anyone who said they could. But I am just as highly skeptical of anyone who says they can prove He doesn’t. This is why I respond to your comments.
As for your definition of atheists. Yes I do believe the definition you keep giving does exist and is valid. However there are many other definitions both in dictionaries and in actual behavior of people who say they are atheists. I would accept your self identification as an ‘innocent atheist’ if you behaved as one. But you don’t. You have a very strong and hostile attitude towards those who adopt any sort of superstitious belief. And the number and kind of people for who it can be said have never heard of God or any spiritual belief (infants and the mentally challenged?) are so small and belong to a group that is irrelevant to our discussion. Of much more interest are those who just don’t have a position one way or the other. These at least are highly thinking people and correctly make no conclusion about God on the material plane. But you obviously do have a position-can you honestly and with conviction say “it makes no sense to conclude one way or the other that God exists”? If so then I will accept your self identification as an innocent atheist and welcome this new conversation we will be having.
You ask the question: “Which all begs the question: how have you come to the conclusion that some internal private experience you had was a god, never mind any specific god?” Answer, in the same way I came to the conclusion my own private experience of thinking was the same as what you mean by thinking. I look inside of my own awareness and see what that is like, see how I behave as a result of it, look at you and see how you behave and impute the same source of experience as to the match. I do not know, rationally, objectively, that you think just the same as I do nor do I know that another’s experience of God is the same as mine, it just fits so I accept it as so.
Rational materialism is very effective on the material plane for eliminating false assertions, and through this method we have advanced tremendously as a civilization, however by assuming that the material world was the only reality we have stepped backwards in a big way on the spiritual plane and that is what concerns me.
One of the ideas you keep suggesting that I have been meaning to respond to is this: That originally, by default we are rational and objective in our awareness and thinking. You gave the story of the development of man and showed, using the example of fire, how we learned through trial and error by observing the physical world around us. What you fail to acknowledge is that from the very beginning and long before we became Rational Objectivists, mankind had a very superstitious and magical awareness. Man did feel the burn of the fire and learn to keep his hands out of it while at the same time improve his ability to eat things by cooking over a fire but the fire had a spirit that needed to be treated right for the successful use of fire, this spirit eventually became a god and then God, but the fire was always interpreted within the context of this reality. And this was long before the Enlightenment and The Age Of Reason. As well, in child development we do not start out as rational materialists: it is only until the age of 8 or 9 that children develop the conceptual skills and the level of consciousness to be able to think and act rationally. Children start out very egocentric and develop magical and mythical ways of interpreting their world long before they develop an objective material ability. And during most of the history and prehistory of mankind it appears they never developed beyond either a magical or mythical way of understanding reality.
So when you say I must show you the proof of God since you were just minding your own business believing in nothing I cry foul. People were believing in God long before anyone came along and suggested that belief itself was meaningless and empirical facts are necessary to back up claims of what is real or not. So I say you are the one who has to prove your position that the only reality is the material one not the other way around. I believe that the evidence supports the assertion that you yourself were someone who determined their reality through magical and mythical beliefs long before you became a Rational Objectivist.
This is why we have atheists not a-rationalists, because theism came first, rationalism is a very recent occurrence in the history of man. If you just said you were a rationalist and never made any comments about my belief in God or the existence of God because you had no position about them I would not be responding right now. But by calling yourself an atheist you are directly pointing to theism and theists and making a point about it. Now I don’t think that coming first is any basis of superiority anymore than I think that the first single-celled organisms are superior to homo sapiens. So in that sense I do think that rational thinking is an evolution forward in mankind’s awareness. But the evolution goes on, it doesn’t stop at rationalism but keeps going. There are much more sophisticated forms of spirituality developing now which include both rational and irrational truths to get an even greater view of reality than rationalism alone. In social development terms rational materialism is labeled ‘modernism’ and in the study of cultural development we have been in a ‘post-modern’ society for many years and there are even signs of a new ‘integral’ shift evolving (with 2-5% of the population, depending on how you measure it).
Post modernists would say “I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. What you believe is true for you and what I believe is true for me, no-one has ‘the truth’.” This is how they are different than you as a modernist who believe there is one material objective truth that can be measured, verified and proven. So, at least in terms of sequence they evolved (developed) after the modernists and therefore are even more evolved. You may not accept this input and I don’t need you to but you do leave yourself open to this response when you make statements like “atheism is the default position” and “the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim”.
Respectfully,
Dylan.
Silly, just plain silly.
“Santa Claus” is the ancient shamanic Finno-Ugrian antlered-figure, the old man of the dark who reminded everyone of the “Underworld.” Why do you think he drives a reindeer sled, dresses in the color of the Underworld Womb (red, hooded), lives at the North Pole (the point around which the Great Bear, Ursa Major, circles), and descends/ascends via a chimney (a smoke-hole, the traditional means of spirit-travel of shamans)?
I love Santa Claus for this reason. Jesus I can do without. What a wimp. “Oh, my mom got knocked up by a bird, and I’m poor and the cow almost ate me in the major.” I was not raised Christian but was further put off it as a child because it seemed like a religion of wimps, slaves, and tops-from-below. But back to Joulupukki.
Look him up. He was brought to the New World by Delaware Finns in the 1630s-1650s and flourished in the mid-Atlantic. Delaware Finns were Sami, Savonian, and Karjalan indigenous people in Central “Finland” who were ethnically cleansed in the 1500s by Russian and Swedish nobles who wanted the forestlands to burn for charcoal, to support forges for the iron and war industries. Some were allowed to migrate to the hill country between Norway and Sweden; many were shoved into cities (Forest Finns’ idea of hell), a handful later found passage to the New World, today’s Delaware River valley. There they established the first lasting settlements and lived very amicably with the native people, the Lenni Lenape, till driven off their land by various nations. Many Delaware Finns moved into the Appalachians to become America’s first backwoods rednecks. The late Terry Jordan wrote extensively on this subject and the material evidence for it, along with Matti Kaups. In brief, these “Forest Finns” arrived with a powerful cultural complex in place for adapting to life in the forest…and a hatred of agricultural civilization’s ways and religion.
Joulupukki (in Suomi, “the old goat”) comes from a time in human psyche when “dark” was considered a place of transformation and potential evolution, not “the enemy” to be imprisoned in hell and kept there. The Dutch in the New World overlaid this figure–in self defense against all that scary primitive dark of people who wouldn’t shop in their stores because they made everything themselves–on various sentimental European expressions of folk figures who represented the Skygod/Sungod religion. St. Nicholas is one–patron saint of children. Joulupukki by contrast was there to remind everyone that nothing was beyond the reach of the dark, of death, of transformation and evolution. He’d go from door to door, drunk as hell, banging on the doors, roaring for food and booze, and threatening to cart off bad children in his sack. For that alone I love him. “Your kid is a brat. Out of the gene pool.”
I’d also like to refer you all to a 1985 book by Rogan Taylor, The Death and Resurrection Show. His thesis is that mass entertainment is overlaid on and picks up elements of ancient shamanic techniques and culture. I’m not sure I believe that (shamanism is an individual project, not a mass one). But it’s interesting anyway. There is an entire lost history of mental evolution and transformation–I don’t mean woo-woo-wicca-type stuff (I have nothing against wiccans so long as they leave me alone). Humans have been experimenting with our own mental and social evolution for far longer than religion has existed, with the sole, and profitable, goal of barring and controlling that evolution.
It is likely that Joulupukki reaches back even farther–not the old goat (refer to the Capricorn/winter theme in the agricultures), but the old bear who goes underground. This is related to the Christian myth of the deity who emerges in spring from a cave. Ancient nearctic hunting magic/culture permeates Christian mythos. Most Christians have no idea that they worship some of the oldest powers of all, though I am happy to report having encountered a handful who do know that history, and seek to extend it as a culture jam against Judaeo-Christianity-Islam. Hey, don’t ask me, I’m just observing.
Me, I like the old Arctic stories–I was raised in them. But I was also raised reading Darwin. In that I think that nearctic shamanism is closer to the mentality that today’s emerging biology is trying to achieve. If you want good dentistry, childbirthing, and plumbing/health, go with shamanism or modern technology, or, in my view, a meld of both. But leave religion out of it.
Skoora the Gentle Shark
“Major” should be “manger.” Thank you, Microsoft.
Skoora
If you cant piss of fox news then your not doing your job right.
Asking for evidence of unicorns is what is known as Insane Troll Logic, a type of strawman argumant intended to make religious beliefs look foolish.
* Believing in unicorns is foolish
* Believing in unicorns and religion is the same thing.
* Therefore religion is foolish.
Try again.