Objectivity and Atheism

[Sophus]

I didn't notice he was being "nice" to me...

Because you're too cynical. Lighten up!  

[Whitney]

He's now on a 7 day ban for creating a sockpuppet.

[G-Roll]

So, for those that agreed with him....care to explain his argument in a rational calm manner so he can see what is appropriate when he returns?

I still fail to see how atheism automatically requires naturalism because there are atheistic religions.  Obj neglected to provide a definition of atheism that is valid that included anything more than not having a belief in a god.  He simply just kept saying the same thing over and over again and railroading people.

I don’t know if I can state his point any better than he did but fuck it here we go..

As an atheists one has no belief in a deity or supernatural being. So god doesn’t make it snow. There is a scientific reason/explanation for this and just about every natural event on earth.
Perhaps his creation of the universe argument was a bad example. Keeping it smaller to natural explanations of say lightning, would be natural explanations.
Granted I think at least 98% of atheists have their belief rooted in naturalism. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there was at least one person who fitted the needed criteria. But I think I have posted that at least 3 times now.

I don’t understand the atheist side of the argument (ha that was fun to type). How can one not believe in any creator, but still not believe that any natural occurrence on earth isn’t naturally explainable.

[G-Roll]

To my understanding atheists can and often do believe in other supernatural… things. Like ghosts. But there is some other form of naturalism or of science or what have you right bedside it.

It's not a deity they're worshipping because it's not a being. There's actually an entire religion based off of the Star Wars force (it's larger than Scientology) that believes only in, well... a force. There's quite a number of "spiritualities" like this (perhaps spiritual is the better word over "religion").

i cant argue the nihilist thing. the understanding of nihilism and what makes one a nihilists escapes me.

I know (not really ). I was really confused by it the first time I learned of it too. In short, I think humans cannot know (in the fullest sense of know - with 100% certainty) what is true. We can have our logical reasoning but our brains simply don't know. That's all. Simpler than it's made out to be.

There's actually an entire religion based off of the Star Wars force (it's larger than Scientology) that believes only in, well... a force

sometimes i go out of my way not to call others beliefs bullshit.. but that is utter bullshit. These are grown adults?
Does this force replace natural science though? Surely these force believers don’t belive the foprce created the earth all on its own. To my knowledge one has to wield the force. Grant it that person might not be considered a god but im really just making things up now.
would they believe in evolution? with or without the force that is natural science.

[Whitney]

How can one not believe in any creator, but still not believe that any natural occurrence on earth isn’t naturally explainable.

Not everything that would qualify as supernatural would be right to call god as not everything supernatural is necessarily a being..such as the above mentioned Star Wars Force example.  (there are less obviously bullshit ones such as Collective Unconscious and animism)

So, one could be an atheist and think the Force explains 'natural' occurrences and not be a naturalist.  So, it wouldn't be right to tie up naturalism into the atheist viewpoint since that definition doesn't fit across the board.

He was too busy being upset to realize that I was making a point rather than me trying to argue that I'm personally not a naturalist.  Yet if we are talking about lightning and other things like that then most theists are naturalists too.  I know I didn't believe god made every single snowflake when I was a believer; I thought he created the universe and that from there everything happened naturally and miracles were when god intervened supernaturally.

I also think he was wrong to think that naturalism means you can't know anything but supernaturalist views mean you can know things....a god existing doesn't automatically change our ability to acquire knowledge.  For instance, if it is a deist god we'd have just as poor a chance of getting answers out of it as we would a rock.

[Sophus]

As an atheists one has no belief in a deity or supernatural being. So god doesn’t make it snow. There is a scientific reason/explanation for this and just about every natural event on earth.
Perhaps his creation of the universe argument was a bad example. Keeping it smaller to natural explanations of say lightning, would be natural explanations.
Granted I think at least 98% of atheists have their belief rooted in naturalism. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there was at least one person who fitted the needed criteria. But I think I have posted that at least 3 times now.

I don’t understand the atheist side of the argument (ha that was fun to type). How can one not believe in any creator, but still not believe that any natural occurrence on earth isn’t naturally explainable.

Even most Christians believe in the scientific reasons behind why it rains or snows, but may believe God is still behind it sometimes (ex. we're all in a drought and need rain. It does. Hallelujah, it's a miracle!). Even a lot of the Catholics believe in evolution. This is why I thought it was hypocritical for him to call mystics any less consistent in their beliefs.

Oh and I don't really know much about the Force religion but you may be able to find more info here: http://www.jedichurch.org/

[G-Roll]

Not everything that would qualify as supernatural would be right to call god as not everything supernatural is necessarily a being..such as the above mentioned Star Wars Force example.

Agreed. Perhaps chi would be a good example?

So, one could be an atheist and think the Force explains 'natural' occurrences and not be a naturalist. So, it wouldn't be right to tie up naturalism into the atheist viewpoint since that definition doesn't fit across the board.

LOL never in my life would i have thought the knowledge of the force or Collective Unconscious and animism would be useful. So forgive me if i type something ignorant because i know nothing of these things. But unless the force would have used itself to create everything, and every natural occurrence then i don’t think that would apply.
I know i posted it once but it went unanswered an i think sophus left already... but do the forcers believe in evolution?

He was too busy being upset to realize that I was making a point rather than me trying to argue that I'm personally not a naturalist. Yet if we are talking about lightning and other things like that then most theists are naturalists too. I know I didn't believe god made every single snowflake when I was a believer; I thought he created the universe and that from there everything happened naturally and miracles were when god intervened supernaturally.

To that degree yes, everyone is a naturalist. Wouldn’t that make EVERYONE a naturalist though? Or am i just taking it to far?

I also think he was wrong to think that naturalism means you can't know anything but supernaturalist views mean you can know things....a god existing doesn't automatically change our ability to acquire knowledge. For instance, if it is a deist god we'd have just as poor a chance of getting answers out of it as we would a rock.

I think it was at that point he went into nihilism and... i dunno i was lost at that point. I only agreed with the naturalist being the root of atheism.

[G-Roll]

As an atheists one has no belief in a deity or supernatural being. So god doesn’t make it snow. There is a scientific reason/explanation for this and just about every natural event on earth.
Perhaps his creation of the universe argument was a bad example. Keeping it smaller to natural explanations of say lightning, would be natural explanations.
Granted I think at least 98% of atheists have their belief rooted in naturalism. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there was at least one person who fitted the needed criteria. But I think I have posted that at least 3 times now.

I don’t understand the atheist side of the argument (ha that was fun to type). How can one not believe in any creator, but still not believe that any natural occurrence on earth isn’t naturally explainable.

Even most Christians believe in the scientific reasons behind why it rains or snows, but may believe God is still behind it sometimes (ex. we're all in a drought and need rain. It does. Hallelujah, it's a miracle!). Even a lot of the Catholics believe in evolution. This is why I thought it was hypocritical for him to call mystics any less consistent in their beliefs.

Oh and I don't really know much about the Force religion but you may be able to find more info here: http://www.jedichurch.org/

thank you for the link but honestly i doubt ill click it. i kinda like being ignorant. its gotten me this far  
yes a drought but rather than a god giving the rain its a natural explanation rather than a miracle.
and the catholics believing in evolution is them believing in the same natural science as we do?

[Sophus]

thank you for the link but honestly i doubt ill click it. i kinda like being ignorant. its gotten me this far  
yes a drought but rather than a god giving the rain its a natural explanation rather than a miracle.
and the catholics believing in evolution is them believing in the same natural science as we do?

Right. A lot of theistic evolutionists fill the gaps with Abiogenesis, or the origins of life. Since our natural explanations haven't arrived at a verdict there, they fill the gap with God. Others may say God establish evolution or is the driving force behind it. Not much different from what one of my in-laws believes except he's not religious and doesn't believe in any gods. He's just "spiritual". But a smart fellow too.

Are you familiar with "The Secret"?

[Whitney]

For the record the jedi church was started as a joke...while there might be some die hard Star Wars fans out there who have deluded themselves into believing it is true it is likely still a game for most of the followers.  I guess the force would actually be supernaturalism coming from naturalism since they believe the miticlorians (probably spelled wrong)  are in everyone and are the source of the force.

The collective unconscious is based in Jungian philosophy.  I'm not even that familiar with it anymore; I use to be able to explain the basics in a manner that didn't butcher it....it's actually kinda like the force idea minus it being automatically ridiculous for having been created for a fairy tale story.

Animism is a very primitive religious view that sees the spiritual world as being within nature...like native american religions but with no afterlife belief; you return to the earth to become one with the cycle of life.  I only know about this because I read the Ishmael series and then later did a bit more research since I wasn't sure how much of the series was based on fact and how much was purely to facilitate the storyline (the books are philosophical stories written in the Socratic method).

[G-Roll]

thank you for the link but honestly i doubt ill click it. i kinda like being ignorant. its gotten me this far  
yes a drought but rather than a god giving the rain its a natural explanation rather than a miracle.
and the catholics believing in evolution is them believing in the same natural science as we do?

Right. A lot of theistic evolutionists fill the gaps with Abiogenesis, or the origins of life. Since our natural explanations haven't arrived at a verdict there, they fill the gap with God. Others may say God establish evolution or is the driving force behind it. Not much different from what one of my in-laws believes except he's not religious and doesn't believe in any gods. He's just "spiritual". But a smart fellow too.

Are you familiar with "The Secret"?

The secret the book? Ive seen it but never read it.
And ive know of spiritual people that are not religious, so im following you.

A lot of theistic evolutionists fill the gaps with Abiogenesis, or the origins of life. Since our natural explanations haven't arrived at a verdict there, they fill the gap with God. Others may say God establish evolution or is the driving force behind it.

Many of my Christian friends make this claim.

[Sophus]

The secret the book? Ive seen it but never read it.
And ive know of spiritual people that are not religious, so im following you.

Okay, so they both think there are supernatural activities behind the natural ones, and that somtimes the supernatural answers their prayers on works with them on a personal basis (like the Secret). This is why I don't see one being any more rational/irrational than the other. I think they're both silly. But I didn't see his point as to why the magic believing atheist was any more silly than the magic believing believer. Am I making sense?

[G-Roll]

For the record the jedi church was started as a joke...

haha i knew it smelled of bs!!

Animism is a very primitive religious view that sees the spiritual world as being within nature...like native american religions but with no afterlife belief; you return to the earth to become one with the cycle of life. I only know about this because I read the Ishmael series and then later did a bit more research since I wasn't sure how much of the series was based on fact and how much was purely to facilitate the storyline (the books are philosophical stories written in the Socratic method).

That actually sounds really interesting and i might even look into this animismismismism....
I think that perhaps that might be the atheists that don’t believe in naturalism, but can it really be applied in todays world? And would it fit in todays society?

[Sophus]

For the record the jedi church was started as a joke...

Oh good! My fath in humanity is (somewhat) restored. It hasn't turned into anything serious though has it? I recall hearing about at least one loon who was serious about some place respecting his religion.

[Whitney]

I think that perhaps that might be the atheists that don’t believe in naturalism, but can it really be applied in todays world? And would it fit in todays society?

It would definitely apply to the millions of Buddhists who believe in karma yet (rightly) don't consider Buddah to be god.

If obj at said that most self described atheists are naturalists; I wouldn't have argued that much with him over definitions.  The problem is in making blanket statements that aren't true across the board.