Why I am not an atheist (it's not what you think ;) )

[xSilverPhinx]

Speaking for myself, I call myself an ignostic atheist, but the a-theist part is just meaningful to counter any theistic version of god, as in I don't see sufficient evidence to back up any theistic claim. The word 'god' is a meaningless concept, and until believers firstly define or describe what their god is, it's pointless to call myself an atheist. I don't see myself as an apatheist because...ahem...theists exist.

As much as I think terms such as these only complicate rather than clarify ones position, my favorite term, the one I see as the most accurate and intellectually honest, is the term popularized by Christopher Hitchins, who I respect a great deal for his integrity and intellectual capabilities. He knows religious history but not the Bible, unfortunately. The term is anti-theist.

Yes, I would call myself an anti-theist as well,but since you yourself acknowledge that labels don't necessarily give one a better understanding of other people, there's no point in beating that dead horse.

And speaking of words, your usage of "believe in evolution" is wrong, IMO. There's nothing to believe in, since, as Attila said, it's not based on faith. "Accept", perhaps?

The theory of evolution is, at best, a metaphysical experiment. It has produced a plethora of observations irrelevant based upon a faulty premise.

I really don't know why you would say that, but to not derail this thread into a debate on whether people are justified in accepting the theory of evolution to be the best model of reality, I would suggest that if you want, to post on the countless threads about evolution in the Creationist/Intelligent design forum.  

The difficulty as I see it is an appalling lack of understanding on the very simple primitive meaning of the word god. It simply means anything or anyone that is thought to be mighty or is venerated. So Satan is a god. Eric Clapton is a god. God's don't have to exist to be gods. The skeptic and believer alike think of God as Jehovah, or God as Jesus, or God as exclusively supernatural and all of this is an example of the need for Ockham's Razor.

The simple definition of god negates any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy. It has nothing to do with the questioning of God's existence, which is unnecessary anyway as the definition of God implies. It doesn't matter whether the god in question actually exists unless you are specific about the God in question. The question of "do gods exist" is as moot as "do men exist."

Your very broad definition of 'god' confuses me, if anything that is considered mighty or to be venerated, then what's the point of the word or concept? It becomes meaningless, especially since what is 'mighty' or 'to be venerated' is in the eye of the beholder, in other words, subjective.

What isn't objectively meaningful can easily be dismissed and subjectively unmeaningful by people who don't believe...before negating any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy it negates that of theistic philosophy and without which there's no point of atheology even existing.

[Earthling]

Yes, I would call myself an anti-theist as well,but since you yourself acknowledge that labels don't necessarily give one a better understanding of other people, there's no point in beating that dead horse.

Fair enough, I suppose.

The theory of evolution is, at best, a metaphysical experiment. It has produced a plethora of observations irrelevant based upon a faulty premise.

I really don't know why you would say that, but to not derail this thread into a debate on whether people are justified in accepting the theory of evolution to be the best model of reality, I would suggest that if you want, to post on the countless threads about evolution in the Creationist/Intelligent design forum.

I will be posting an article I wrote on Mutations as the Basis of Evolution. Hopefully.  

Your very broad definition of 'god' confuses me, if anything that is considered mighty or to be venerated, then what's the point of the word or concept? It becomes meaningless, especially since what is 'mighty' or 'to be venerated' is in the eye of the beholder, in other words, subjective.

EXACTLY!! GOOD JOB!

I'm so happy! You have learned the essence of gods! Its so simple, isn't it! Its true though. Look it up in a good dictionary. All of its meanings.

What isn't objectively meaningful can easily be dismissed and subjectively unmeaningful by people who don't believe...before negating any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy it negates that of theistic philosophy and without which there's no point of atheology even existing.

Uh . . . what?! It must be getting late I have no idea what you just said. Could you elaborate on that?

[xSilverPhinx]

I thought I'd respond to this just in case Earthling come back.

I will be posting an article I wrote on Mutations as the Basis of Evolution. Hopefully.

...Ok

Your very broad definition of 'god' confuses me, if anything that is considered mighty or to be venerated, then what's the point of the word or concept? It becomes meaningless, especially since what is 'mighty' or 'to be venerated' is in the eye of the beholder, in other words, subjective.

EXACTLY!! GOOD JOB!

I'm so happy! You have learned the essence of gods! Its so simple, isn't it! Its true though. Look it up in a good dictionary. All of its meanings.

What isn't objectively meaningful can easily be dismissed and (correction: as) subjectively unmeaningful by people who don't believe...before negating any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy it negates that of theistic philosophy and without which there's no point of atheology even existing.

Uh . . . what?! It must be getting late I have no idea what you just said. Could you elaborate on that?

If the word 'god' has so many meanings and can be fluid enough to describe a number of things, then what does it mean, objectively? Any serious consideration of atheistic philosophy is pointless because any serious consideration of theistic philosophy is pointless, due to the word's (god) subjectivity.

[Troll god]

For me -- and am I alone in this? -- the question of whether a god or gods exist has absolutely no interest or importance. I can't imagine how any aspect of my life would change if somehow some answer to the question were found. To take one example of a similar issue, I have no interest in whether the the number of molecules in the universe is a prime or or not a prime. Like the existence of some supernatural being, I can't attach any significance to this question. Since I would not identify myself as a  "primist" or an "aprimist" because the issue has no significance to me so I couldn't call myself an atheist for exactly the same reason. I just don't care. By the way, this is not agnosticism. It's not that I don't know (I don't) but rather it wouldn't make any difference whether I knew or not.

Dawkins's discussion of this issue in The God Delusion has raised considerable debate most notable for being boring, moronic and pointless.  This was done at the expense of the many more important and interesting points raised in his book. In any event I much prefer the approach taken by Michael Parenti in his God and his Demons.

I guess I could call myself a "je m'en foutiste" but there wouldn't be much point in it. My reason for posting this is that I wonder if there are others who share this point of view. I confess my ignorance and am quite prepared to blush with embarrassment when informed that it is quite well known and not at all uncommon.

Thanks in advance for the enlightenment.
Attila

I think this is called to be an apatheist, to don't care if exist any deity at all.

[Attila]

Yes, you are quite correct, TG but that doesn't describe my position accurately. If you are interested I suggest the thread "Confessions of an "ex-apathetist" in the Introductions section. It explains the ignosticism and theological noncognitivism positions which I had not heard of before joining this forum. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

A second point is that I don't consider my views about god to be of primary importance. They are derived from my political/moral views which reject authority. God is whatever shape or non-shape, form or non-form is just another authority figure. All religions which seek to impose authority ("obey god=obey us") are my enemies.
I hope that's clear.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Yes, you are quite correct, TG but that doesn't describe my position accurately. If you are interested I suggest the thread "Confessions of an "ex-apathetist" in the Introductions section. It explains the ignosticism and theological noncognitivism positions which I had not heard of before joining this forum. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Here's the intro from the wiki article:

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure of Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

   1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
   2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

Question One, Attila: If I define "God" as "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," is that sufficiently coherent to allow for discussion? 

Question Two: Isn't the above definition of God falsifiable if it can be shown that there is positive, conclusive evidence that a personal, intelligent, conscious being was not responsible for the existence of the universe?

A second point is that I don't consider my views about god to be of primary importance. They are derived from my political/moral views which reject authority. God is whatever shape or non-shape, form or non-form is just another authority figure. All religions which seek to impose authority ("obey god=obey us") are my enemies.

So you accept authority from no source whatsoever?  Just as a matter of personal survival, don't you think that authority is necessary to some extent on even a Hobbesian, social contract basis?  At a very basic level, if you visit someone else's home, don't you accept that person's authority over what is allowed in that home?  How could there be any basis for society in the absence of any authority whatsoever?  Are you a true anarchist?  Just askin'. 

[Attila]

Yes, you are quite correct, TG but that doesn't describe my position accurately. If you are interested I suggest the thread "Confessions of an "ex-apathetist" in the Introductions section. It explains the ignosticism and theological noncognitivism positions which I had not heard of before joining this forum. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Question One, Attila: If I define "God" as "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," is that sufficiently coherent to allow for discussion?

First of all (for the 2nd time) welcome back. It's nice to hear from you and this is a most excellent post. Thank you.   It's 5:00 here and I have just brewed myself a nice cup of wonderful Italian coffee.
Your teasing me again, right? Even a 5:00 I know that the rub is "responsible for the existence of the universe". I think you know about the fallacies of the cosmological arguments. Do you really want me to repeat them? Also you'll need to define "intelligent" for me. Is it a restrictive part of your definition? Are you saying that if we found a ""a personal, stupid, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," that it wouldn't be a god? Anyway, "responsible for the existence of the universe," is the meaningless bit.

Question Two: Isn't the above definition of God falsifiable if it can be shown that there is positive, conclusive evidence that a personal, intelligent, conscious being was not responsible for the existence of the universe?

I'll go the Popperian route on this one: what evidence will you accept to falsify the claim that there is "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe,"
assuming you could even make the claim intelligible enough to test?p

A second point is that I don't consider my views about god to be of primary importance. They are derived from my political/moral views which reject authority. God is whatever shape or non-shape, form or non-form is just another authority figure. All religions which seek to impose authority ("obey god=obey us") are my enemies.

So you accept authority from no source whatsoever?  Just as a matter of personal survival, don't you think that authority is necessary to some extent on even a Hobbesian, social contract basis?  At a very basic level, if you visit someone else's home, don't you accept that person's authority over what is allowed in that home?  How could there be any basis for society in the absence of any authority whatsoever?  Are you a true anarchist?  Just askin'.  

Sure, no problem. You're mixing up "authority" with "expertise, experience, trust". There is a rational, non-arbitrary basis for it. It is content-centred rather than based merely on the position that one holds. There have been books written about this question. I've referred you to one on the "Earthling suspended for 7 days" thread. If you like, I can send you a copy (maybe it's banned where you live   )
Secondly, hatred of authority starts with oneself. My first responsibility is to avoid being the agent of authority myself. I have managed to avoid holding almost any positions of authority in my life. I was PI on a large number of research projects and I was head of department for a couple of months. I resigned from the latter position because I was disgusted by what it was doing to me. Going into someone's house and telling them what to do means I'm the one exercising authority. I think your problems come from using "authority" in a number of metaphorical senses. If a doctor tells me to take a given medicine and I have confidence in her then I'm going to take the medicine. I don't consider that to be a case of authority. If I live in a West African village, I first ask permission to live there, I don't just move in. I follow the rules established by the community. If I'm unhappy with them, I leave. That's one example but let's keep this short. The "A" in HAF stands for "Atheist" and not "Anarchist".

[xSilverPhinx]

That's a good post, Attila. I'll be following this conversation with interest

[Ecurb Noselrub]

First of all (for the 2nd time) welcome back. It's nice to hear from you and this is a most excellent post. Thank you.   It's 5:00 here and I have just brewed myself a nice cup of wonderful Italian coffee.
Your teasing me again, right? Even a 5:00 I know that the rub is "responsible for the existence of the universe". I think you know about the fallacies of the cosmological arguments. Do you really want me to repeat them? Also you'll need to define "intelligent" for me. Is it a restrictive part of your definition? Are you saying that if we found a ""a personal, stupid, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," that it wouldn't be a god? Anyway, "responsible for the existence of the universe," is the meaningless bit.

The fallacies of the cosmological arguments are really irrelevant here.  I'm not asserting that there is any logical proof of God from any source. I'm merely attempting to get a definition that is sufficiently coherent that you would feel that a discussion could be had.  Something is responsible for the existence of the universe, whether it be completely inanimate, completely personal, or something in between.  I'm just using "intelligent" in its normal sense - I would refer to anyone posting on this board as being "intelligent", in that they are capable, at some level, of rationality. Same definition for God.  This is just a definition for purposes of discussion.  If you want to conclude that if God is conscious, he must be stupid, that's fine.  I'm just trying to find a starting point for discussion.

I'll go the Popperian route on this one: what evidence will you accept to falsify the claim that there is "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," assuming you could even make the claim intelligible enough to test?

Science has conclusively proved lots of things, I suppose.  If there was a final, testable conclusion that there is no personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe, I would accept that.  I'm not sure myself what that proof would look like.  I'm not trying to be evasive, but science has discovered a lot and I suppose it could one day prove conclusively that a creator God did not exist.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You're mixing up "authority" with "expertise, experience, trust". There is a rational, non-arbitrary basis for it. It is content-centred rather than based merely on the position that one holds. There have been books written about this question. I've referred you to one on the "Earthling suspended for 7 days" thread. If you like, I can send you a copy (maybe it's banned where you live   )
Secondly, hatred of authority starts with oneself. My first responsibility is to avoid being the agent of authority myself. I have managed to avoid holding almost any positions of authority in my life. I was PI on a large number of research projects and I was head of department for a couple of months. I resigned from the latter position because I was disgusted by what it was doing to me. Going into someone's house and telling them what to do means I'm the one exercising authority. I think your problems come from using "authority" in a number of metaphorical senses. If a doctor tells me to take a given medicine and I have confidence in her then I'm going to take the medicine. I don't consider that to be a case of authority. If I live in a West African village, I first ask permission to live there, I don't just move in. I follow the rules established by the community. If I'm unhappy with them, I leave. That's one example but let's keep this short. The "A" in HAF stands for "Atheist" and not "Anarchist".

Your example of asking permission to live in the village seems more of an acknowledgement of authority than anything else. "Rules established by the community" mean nothing unless there is a mechanism for enforcement, which equals authority.  I assume that you would exercise authority over me if I started taking things out of your house or stealing the clothes off of your back.  That has nothing to do with expertise or experience - it would simply be a matter of one person or group exercising authority over another. "Rules" come from "authority", whether that authority is a Pope, a King, or a group of people living in a village bound together by certain traditions.  Go violate that village's rules, and you will soon meet that village's authority. I just don't see how it could be any other way.

[Attila]

The fallacies of the cosmological arguments are really irrelevant here.  I'm not asserting that there is any logical proof of God from any source. I'm merely attempting to get a definition that is sufficiently coherent that you would feel that a discussion could be had.  Something is responsible for the existence of the universe, whether it be completely inanimate, completely personal, or something in between.  I'm just using "intelligent" in its normal sense - I would refer to anyone posting on this board as being "intelligent", in that they are capable, at some level, of rationality. Same definition for God.  This is just a definition for purposes of discussion.  If you want to conclude that if God is conscious, he must be stupid, that's fine.  I'm just trying to find a starting point for discussion.

If I understand you personal, conscious  and intelligenct are extraneous to your definition and, for simplicity, should be eliminated. That leaves us with something responsible for the existence of the universe. This, as I suggestion before is precisely your problem area. The expression CAUSE(existence of the universe) is meaningless. But what logic do you deduce that the existence of the  universe could have a cause. I'm am taking your "responsible for" to mean "cause" for simplicity. I don't think that effect that meaningless of your phrase. Causing something to exist means that the universe must have a beginning (a state following non-existence). But this is just gibberish.

 

I'll go the Popperian route on this one: what evidence will you accept to falsify the claim that there is "a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe," assuming you could even make the claim intelligible enough to test?

Science has conclusively proved lots of things, I suppose.

Actually, no that's not how it works. Your statement is false. In any event I wasn't asking about proof; I was asking about falsification. If your hypothesis is not falsifiable then no scientist will go near it. I has no empirical content and hence is not interesting.

 If there was a final, testable conclusion that there is no personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe, I would accept that.

Sorry Brucie, that ain't how it works. Your logic is screwed up. That fact that you can't prove something to be false is not evidence that it is true. I cannot prove that the number of molecules in our galaxy is a prime number. From that statement absolutely nothing follows. Now in your case the situation is even worse. Your statement, being unintelligible can not even be assigned a true value; it is neither true nor false. It is meaningless. Sorry about that. 

I'm not sure myself what that proof would look like.  I'm not trying to be evasive, but science has discovered a lot and I suppose it could one day prove conclusively that a creator God did not exist.

No Bruce, you've got it wrong. "Science" doesn't discover anything. People do that. The formulate hypotheses and then test them. Consider the case of Pluto (whether it's officially a planet or not is irrelevant). Astronomers around 1930 observed gravitational perturbations in our solar system. They hypothesised that a massive object having a particular orbit could account for these perturbations. The problem was that at the time telescopes were not powerful enough to spot the hypothetical object. The prediction was that when such telescopes became available and were pointed at such and such a place, then the object should be observed. And it was. That's pretty much how it works. Your hypothesis is unintelligible and there is no evidence either positive or negative that relates it to the empirical world. Your just out of luck.

In fact a long time ago Tommy Aquinas noted that the road of reason was not going to get you to god no matter how hard you tried. You only get to god through faith. Here endeth the lesson.

[Attila]

You're mixing up "authority" with "expertise, experience, trust". There is a rational, non-arbitrary basis for it. It is content-centred rather than based merely on the position that one holds. There have been books written about this question. I've referred you to one on the "Earthling suspended for 7 days" thread. If you like, I can send you a copy (maybe it's banned where you live   )
Secondly, hatred of authority starts with oneself. My first responsibility is to avoid being the agent of authority myself. I have managed to avoid holding almost any positions of authority in my life. I was PI on a large number of research projects and I was head of department for a couple of months. I resigned from the latter position because I was disgusted by what it was doing to me. Going into someone's house and telling them what to do means I'm the one exercising authority. I think your problems come from using "authority" in a number of metaphorical senses. If a doctor tells me to take a given medicine and I have confidence in her then I'm going to take the medicine. I don't consider that to be a case of authority. If I live in a West African village, I first ask permission to live there, I don't just move in. I follow the rules established by the community. If I'm unhappy with them, I leave. That's one example but let's keep this short. The "A" in HAF stands for "Atheist" and not "Anarchist".

Your example of asking permission to live in the village seems more of an acknowledgement of authority than anything else. "Rules established by the community" mean nothing unless there is a mechanism for enforcement, which equals authority.  I assume that you would exercise authority over me if I started taking things out of your house or stealing the clothes off of your back.  That has nothing to do with expertise or experience - it would simply be a matter of one person or group exercising authority over another. "Rules" come from "authority", whether that authority is a Pope, a King, or a group of people living in a village bound together by certain traditions.  Go violate that village's rules, and you will soon meet that village's authority. I just don't see how it could be any other way.

Again you are using "authority" in an idiosyncratic way. I refer you once more to the works I cited for a clearer idea about authority in an anarchist perspective. I am perfectly free to enter a community and try to convince them to change such and such a practice. If I succeed that's fine. If I don't, I can go along with the group or I can leave. Remember that I cannot impose my view on anyone. To help you think of a typical anarchist situation: a group of friends discussing what to do that evening. Think of what goes on. Now suppose another friend joins the group. That's the situation I'm describing. Authority comes from a Pope or a King, that's certainly true. I trust you can tell the difference between that situation and one that I have described here. If you can't then maybe you need to get some friends.

[xSilverPhinx]

Ayer ran into that sort of problem with his logical positivism when defining what meaningful words are and whether they're true or false.

That's why Popper's approach is better. Less messy.

[Attila]

Ayer ran into that sort of problem with his logical positivism when defining what meaningful words are and whether they're true or false.

That's why Popper's approach is better. Less messy.

I'm into my "wine time" sipping a cabernet franc from Friuli DOC. I raise my glass to you xSP. Everyone reads Popper at some point in their life. Then you  pick up Paul Feyerabend and it's like Popper on crack. Try Against Method. Wait till your feeling depressed. It will cheer you up.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If I understand you personal, conscious  and intelligenct are extraneous to your definition and, for simplicity, should be eliminated. That leaves us with something responsible for the existence of the universe. This, as I suggestion before is precisely your problem area. The expression CAUSE(existence of the universe) is meaningless. But what logic do you deduce that the existence of the  universe could have a cause. I'm am taking your "responsible for" to mean "cause" for simplicity. I don't think that effect that meaningless of your phrase. Causing something to exist means that the universe must have a beginning (a state following non-existence). But this is just gibberish.

So is it gibberish for someone to say that quantum vacuum fluctuations are responsible for the universe?  Because there are scientists who say that.  There are scientists who say that the existence of the universe can be explained in purely natural terms - which means that they are talking at some level about how the universe came into being. I'm not sure why it's gibberish to say that personal intelligence is responsible for the universe, but it's not gibberish to say that quantum vacuum fluctuations are responsible. Remember, I'm not trying to prove anything at this point. I'm merely trying to get a definition of God so we can have a discussion.  You are jumping ahead of yourself by objecting to a cause.  "Cause" is not my word.  I'm not confining "responsible for the existence of the universe" to any formal concept of "cause."  

If your hypothesis is not falsifiable then no scientist will go near it. It has no empirical content and hence is not interesting.

Something is "falsifiable" if in principle it can be disproven by observation.  So the statement that "there is a personal, intelligent, conscious being responsible for the existence of the universe" is falsifiable in principle, as eventually science will be able to make observations that will prove it or disprove it.  The tools may not be available now, as in your Pluto example. But there is no reason to think they will not be available in the future.  

In short, my definition of God is both coherent and falsifiable.  You seem to simply be raising objections to avoid the discussion. But if you find it uninteresting, that's fine.  Just say so and the conversation is over.