|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 23, 2011 19:56:52 GMT -8
Jon, I'm curious to hear how you define your atheism and what your main reasons for taking the position are.
|
|
|
|
Post by atheist jon on Oct 15, 2011 19:25:42 GMT -8
Hi Josh, Well, I define MY atheism the same way I would define atheism in general. Most simply put; I have a lack of belief in the existence of any god or gods. Of course, many other sweeping and incorrect attributes are often applied to the term or to the people holding such a view. For example, that atheism is a belief or a faith position. Which it is not. That atheists hate God. Always a very puzzling comment. That atheists believe in nothing. An even stranger comment! My personal belief in ADDITION to atheism, is that no supernatural occurences of any kind whatsoever have ever happened in the history of mankind and nor will they ever occur. Everything that happens in the Universe can be explained scientifically even if we don't have that explanation yet, or will ever have it. So my approach to what I do and don't believe is entirely a rational one. Many atheists DO believe in the supernatural, but I am not one of them. That means that as well as being an atheist I also do not believe in ghosts, zombies, astrology, fortune telling, magical powers such as spoon-bending or mind-reading, lucky numbers, homeopathic or holistic medicine or anything else you may care to add to that list that comes under the general heading of 'woo'.  In fact just the other day I was curious about the efficacy of accupuncture and after some research I found that there is absolutely no evidence that accupuncture has any effect at all. Zero proof. Plenty of annecdotal evidence I'm sure, but that doesn't qualify in the proof stakes as I am sure you are well aware. I would like to add that whilst I do not believe in alien abductions or that we have even been visited by aliens since mankind had been around, I certainly do not deny the existence of aliens and in fact accept that it is highly improbable that we are alone in the Universe. And to your second question. I see nothing to indicate the existence of any god or gods and therefore I take the only rational position that one can take and that is one of atheism. Until some testable evidence is presented and demonstrates otherwise, then the default position is one of non-belief. Should evidence be presented proving that indeed there IS a god, then I would of course change my mind instantly. To summarise, I am NOT saying that there is no God. I am just saying that I don't personally believe there is one. And if anyone accuses me of being agnostic, I am always happy to have that discussion. I am NOT an agnostic, I am an atheist. There are other reasons for not believing in God such as asking questions pertaining to all the bad things happening in the world and the suchlike. But I think that is really more of an area that BELIEVERS have to rationalise for themselves seeing as they already believe. Hope that answers your questions. I'm off to Jamba Juice now. Jon |
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Oct 16, 2011 9:49:43 GMT -8
First I want to thank you for sharing with us. It seem very honest, and I can see your good heart in it. and I was very impressed to hear that you don't believe in aliens,lol.
Jon said '''My personal belief in ADDITION to atheism, is that no supernatural occurences of any kind whatsoever have ever happened in the history of mankind and nor will they ever occur. Everything that happens in the Universe can be explained scientifically even if we don't have that explanation yet, or will ever have it. So my approach to what I do and don't believe is entirely a rational one. Many atheists DO believe in the supernatural, but I am not one of them.''''
Are saying here that you don't believe in supernatural?. What is supernatural to you?
Jon said ''''And to your second question. I see nothing to indicate the existence of any god or gods and therefore I take the only rational position that one can take and that is one of atheism. Until some testable evidence is presented and demonstrates otherwise, then the default position is one of non-belief.''''
If people will be willing to bring testable evidence how much are you willing to give out of your time and resources to see it?
Jon said '''''Should evidence be presented proving that indeed there IS a god, then I would of course change my mind instantly.'''
What kind of evidence is good enough? Can you please give me an example of what would be satisfying .
I really like that you would change your mind instantly .
Jon said '''''To summarise, I am NOT saying that there is no God. I am just saying that I don't personally believe there is one.'''''
So are you saying that even if there would be a God out there, you would not believe in him because He did present enough evidence and witness?
Jon said'''''''''There are other reasons for not believing in God such as asking questions pertaining to all the bad things happening in the world and the suchlike. But I think that is really more of an area that BELIEVERS have to rationalise for themselves seeing as they already believe.''''
Are you assuming that God is suppose to be good? How did come to this assumption? Did the idea that we might be at war with Him came to mind ever?
Being an ex Atheist myself I can remember how much my conscience was torn apart by the pain in the world. I understand now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 16, 2011 16:52:59 GMT -8
You don't believe in zombies?   I'm offended  Jon, thanks for the response. It opens up many avenues of potential discussion, but here are a few follow-up responses. In regard to "supernatural", I think it should be pointed out that I also don't think that anything happens that can't be explained "scientifically". That said, I think you'd agree that we, with our limited knowledge, are unable to explain adequately most of the things that happen in the universe. In my opinion, Christians often get muddled about what "supernatural" means. Frequently Christians (and people who are interacting with Christians) think that supernatural means an illogical breaking of the laws of the universe. But I don't think that's really what "supernatural" means. Supernatural may simply mean something that is caused by an agent that is transcendant to our universe (namely, God). And "miracle" may simply mean either "things that happen that we cannot explain" or things that should be attributed to direct, spiritual casual agency. That is how I see these terms. That is how most Christian philosophers have historically seen these terms as well. If God created everything, and God created logic itself, everything that happens is ultimately logical to Him. I don't know if your worldview includes agencies outside the universe, but science is increasingly leaning that way with multiverse theory, so it's really not that startling of a proposal. What's more of a controversy is whether that outside casual agent is the God described in the Bible or merely an additional layer of impersonal causes residing in a larger multiverse. But since it is illogical to suppose an infinite regression of causes, we must end up with an unmoved mover or uncaused cause at some point. And I think the best definition of said cause is the God of the Bible. Regarding your second point about seeing nothing to indicate the existence of a god or gods, do you as an atheist require proof of God's existence, or are you open to exploring evidence for the existence of God? As a man who thinks scientifically, I'm sure you appreciate the difference between "proof" and "evidence". Precious few things (if any) in the universe furnish absolute proof. Arguably every proposition about reality is not based on proof, but the preponderance of the evidence, with varying degrees of room for doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by atheist jon on Oct 17, 2011 1:23:55 GMT -8
Hey Josh and Vio. I will respond to some issues you raise as soon as I have a little more time. For the moment, here's how I define a couple of words. I think of 'supernatural' as something occuring which is contrary to the laws of nature as we understand them. Supernatural = 'Beyond nature'. Of course some things may occur in the future that we have not even considered yet, and at first observation may appear as being supernatural. Ultimately though, I believe that any occurence does have a scientific explantion. And as you brought up the word 'miracle' Josh, I have always considered this word to have two connotations of which neither is incorrect, but nevertheless are fundamentally different. One definition of 'miracle' is the common biblical understanding of it as basically magic. Like David Copperfield but without the trickery. I am sure that Science will investigate this form of miracle when some evidence emerges that it exists. Nothing yet though. As for a miracle being "things that happen that we cannot explain". That seems a little vague to me. When Science is confronted with things that happen that it cannot explain it doesn't label it as a 'miracle'. It labels it as "things that happen that we cannot explain". Many years ago, when I first looked up the word 'miracle' to satisfy my own curiosity, I found one of the definitions to be, simply, 'a wondrous event'. Now we have something I can believe in! So when a small girl is pulled alive from the rubble of a building ten days after the earthquake hit and buried her there, I can joyfully agree with the newscaster or the locals descriptions that "It's a miracle!!". But a supernatural event? No. Just to clear up the aliens thing Vio. I do believe that their existence somewhere in the universe is almost inevitable, though obviously not certain. I am sure that when those sciency people sort out this biogenesis thingy we will have an even better idea of the likelyhood. But even without that information yet, the odds based on what we know (mainly number-crunching), do favour a universe teeming with life. I wonder if any of them play golf. Okay, lots more points that I will address in the fullness of time. And space. After all, we can't separate the two. PS. Don't get me started on zombies Josh. My favourite genre within a genre of movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 17, 2011 19:10:31 GMT -8
If by supernatural you mean a breaking of the laws of nature, then I don't believe in the supernatural either.
But I don't think that's how most Christian philosophers worth their salt define supernatural. Again, they (and I) define supernatural as something caused by an agency outside of the natural realm, namely God, who by definition, exists outside (transcendant to) the universe*
But either way, we both agree that there are rational, fundamental laws put in place in the universe that are inviolable (I believe because God made them that way).
However, I'd venture to say that we differ greatly as to what is actually possible in this universe given the casual power of an agency outside of the universe.
Probably the best analogy of how I see it is to think about multidimensional physics. Think of how the actions of a being in 4 dimensions like us interacting with a hypothetical being in 2 dimensions (say, existing in a flat universe on your computer screen) could produce effects that appear to defy explanation in his 2 D world. And indeed, without a cosmology that accounts for dimensions, he could never make heads or tails of his encounters with us touching his screen.
Likewise, I believe if we understood every fundamental law of the universe (though we never will or can), then we would understand how it is that a body can be resurrected or bread and fish can be multiplied. As it is right now, with multidimensional physics, we can demonstrate how something as probable as a basketball being turned inside out without breaking is possible.
I don't expect you to believe such miracles based on this argument, but I think you can see the logic of how a person can believe in "miracles" but not see them as breaking any real laws of the universe.
I'm out of time just now. Be back when I can....
*though He is also inside (immanent) the universe as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 17, 2011 19:38:38 GMT -8
Regarding miracles, I think the definition "wondrous event" works well.
But another way of defining a miracle might simply be something that defies the laws of nature as we currently understand them. Scientists might be more prone to call this simply unexplained phenomenon, but to me it's just semantics.
|
|
|
|
Post by atheist jon on Oct 19, 2011 11:18:20 GMT -8
Hi Josh. Reading through some other threads I found this statement that you made during a discussion with Moritz; "But an atheist worth his/ her salt will do their best to form as realistic a picture of the God they don't believe in as possible." Now, this is a couple of years old and I don't know whether or not you still stand by this, but having read through many of your posts both general and directed towards me, I cannot believe that someone of your intelligence doesn't see the weakness in this statement. I am not even going to attempt to deconstruct it now as I am too busy using my imagination to draw a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in order that I can dismiss its existence. Sarcasm aside, this seems to bring us back to the same issue once again. To wit, what we as individuals are prepared to accept as evidence. The variation in the threshold between believers and non-believers is usually pretty clear but always worthy of discussion. So let me ask YOU something. Without referencing the Bible, how do you make a case for the veracity of the Bible? As I am feeling so disagreeable today, here's just another thought briefly. Whilst we have some common ground on what we define as being a miracle, I think you are being disingenuous to imply that the general understanding or acceptance of what the word means is quite so loose. If we did a survey/vox pop, I think we both know what answers we would get. So I would only agree that it is semantics up to a point. Okay, I hope that this is not too much off-thread. And Vio, I will answer some of your points soon mate. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 19, 2011 12:58:47 GMT -8
Jon, In regard to the definition of miracles, the reason I have said "most Christian philosophers" define a miracle/ supernatural "this way" is precisely because I am aware that your average Christian would not. So that I'm not considered disingenuous I'll consent that most Christians (who don't think about this kind of stuff very often) do think of miracles as breaking the laws of nature. BTW, for more on this topic, here's a thread that I think goes into this more in-depth: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=miracles&action=display&thread=421I don't recall the original context of my above quote, but I suspect what I simply meant was that one shouldn't argue with a straw dummy. If you're going to attempt to marshal evidence against the existence of God in a way that is going to be meaningful to you and your audience, then the definition of God you're attacking should actually be in line with your opponents understanding. It's a simple logical sentiment (perhaps stated clumsily): define your terms well and attack the most robust version of the position you are trying to disprove. And since no one is seriously suggesting a FSM, I wouldn't bother |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 19, 2011 14:22:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by atheist jon on Oct 19, 2011 19:02:41 GMT -8
I don't want to pound the topic into the ground, but I am still a little confused regarding your perception of the biblical miracles. Let's take turning water in to wine, for instance. If this actually happened, was that not a supernatural event? Or was it just a law of nature taking place that we don't understand yet? Or perhaps it was some sort of trick? I don't see any other options. Unless of course the event didn't occur quite as portrayed in the Bible and the story became distorted over the passing of the years before being recorded. Understandably so. That only leaves the possibility that it never actually happened at all. It was either a deliberate lie or simply an innocent story-telling mechanism that was never meant to be taken literally in the first place. Anyway, on a slightly different issue, you said; ".....the definition of God you're attacking should actually be in line with your opponents understanding." Well, this is exactly why, when someone asks me directly why I don't believe in their god, I ask them to define what THEY mean or 'know' as God before I answer them. Surely it is not for me offer a definition at all. Remember that I dismiss the exitence of ALL gods and so I cannot be expected to be comprehensive regarding definitions every single time I address the issue. I don't agree that the burden is upon me to invent the most robust version of something I don't believe in. I do however always invite apologists to start with their 'most robust' arguments to support THEIR version of God. One more thing I'd like to make clear Josh, and I hope you don't think I'm being picky. but I have already spent too much time on futile endeavours in my life so I am certainly not attempt to 'disprove' the existence of any god or gods. It is the postion of BELIEF that I attack, not the deity. Although I am not entirely comfortable with the word 'attack' as it is rather emotive and can be misconstrued by many people. But I know what you meant. By the way, it was perhaps a trifle unfair of me to pluck statements you have made a long time ago and throw them back at you without you knowing the precise context in which you made them. I will try not to do that in future. Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 19, 2011 19:47:23 GMT -8
So, what I'm saying is that a miracle like Jesus turning the wine into water was supernatural not because it breaks the laws of physics, but because it involved God, who is transcendant to the universe, acting as a casual agent in a way that would be impossible for us, trapped as we are in 4 dimensions. He doesn't break any laws in doing so, but he is manipulating reality in a way we just simply don't understand.
I just happened to be watching the DVD of the Elegant Universe today (about String Theory, etc..) and the host makes an analagous point about how it is realistically possible for a human to walk through a solid wall, but, trapped as we are in 4 dimensions, it would take a near eternity of attempts for that to occur. If we weren't trapped in 4 dimensions, however, it would be a cinch.
In the Judeo-Christian understanding, God, by definition, is the being of which no greater being can be imagined- all possible powers are available to Him. So if there are multiple dimensions, then he exists in them, and is therefore able, as a casual agent, to do a whole host of strange, yet ultimately natural things.
Do you see any problems with this line of reasoning-- besides a mere aversion to the strangeness of it-- a strangeness which I'm sure you've felt about the universe even in a non-religious context?
|
|
In fact just the other day I was curious about the efficacy of accupuncture and after some research I found that there is absolutely no evidence that accupuncture has any effect at all. Zero proof. Plenty of annecdotal evidence I'm sure, but that doesn't qualify in the proof stakes as I am sure you are well aware. 
I'm offended 