The Atheist Thread

@willpayton:

Logic doesnt necessarily lead to a materialistic interpretation of reality, at least that's not what I'm claiming. I admitted previously that materialism makes other assumptions.

I guess to this point I am just trying to sound out my experiences and beliefs against your position. I admit that I have made some assumptions concerning your system. I am really just trying to carve out a place for what I believe within a relatively strict understanding of science which I value.

Non-materialism could indeed be a valid alternative. You just have to define what it is and what assumptions you're making. My point is that materialism has the benefit that it conforms to what we observe, and doesnt make claims about what we cant observe. Now, your competing worldview (which you havent defined yet) might make assumptions that we cant test at all... but, what good is it? How can you tell if it's a correct worldview?

I agree with this very much. I recognize that by presupposing a non-materialist and non-empirical view of reality (or more accurately I leave space for such phenomena while valuing an empirical method for most experiences) I am in a very difficult place regarding my ability to test it and to demonstrate it. My source of knowledge is very personal and powerful but unfortunately very difficult to relate to another even if the restrictions of a materialistic system were relaxed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "observable through methods which are dictated by a materialistic world view". Something is either observable or it's not... or I'm not properly understanding your point. Materialism and what is observable are different things.

By this I was referring to empirical data and the scientific method exclusively. Although it is possible for a person to use the scientific method while personally holding to a non-materialistic view of reality for the most part (as we are discussing above) the method presupposes a materialistic system for it to work clearly and coherently.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're misunderstanding why I believe materialism to be true. It's not that I believe it and hence I ignore evidence that contradicts it, it's that the evidence that I see all supports it and so I believe it. So, I have not decided to believe it a priori.

I was using that specifically in reference to the anecdote. But on a larger note my thought is basically that perhaps you have missed some evidence or ruled it out because a materialistic view of reality would either prevent you from seeing it or acknowledging it. But that is an assumption. All any of us can do is genuinely consider all of the evidence with an open mind.

The issue of historical, textual materials, and other such evidence is a different topic... and while I wouldnt mind discussing that... I'm afraid that it would only expand this discussion out of control. For now I'll simply state that I havent seen any convincing evidence that a supernatural event of any kind has ever happened... and I have looked at all of the "popular" lines of evidence that are claimed for such things.

I agree that chasing this point would get out of control on this thread. I have seen the video you posted on the religion thread by the PhD concerning the historicity of Jesus and have so far watched the first 17 minutes or so. I will try to complete it soon and then offer some comments on that thread (though I fear it will be out of sight out of mind by then).

I am not sure what you mean by "popular" but again perhaps for later. I will admit that this is a subject which I studied to a Masters degree back in the 1990s. But I may be a little out of touch with the current developments (if there have been any). But at any rate I will watch the video and consider it on it's own merits.

I agree that you dont have to assume materialism to be true.

I am sorry for assuming that you did.

I cant address this at all because so far we havent talked about any specific phenomena, or even a specific alternative to materialism. Also, "how humans perceive" is not a factor of materialism. That seems like a completely different topic to me... unless you mean it in a different way from how I'm interpreting it.

By "how humans perceive" again for me merely means possible ways of comprehending phenomena which cannot be understood specifically by materialism and empiricism.Possible examples might be intuition or revelation both of which are extremely common to the human experience and have been for millennia but are very difficult to subject to scientific inquiry.

At least we have agreed that logic is a fundamental and universal starting point. =)

Yes. If you look back at some of our initial encounters we have come a long way. Although I have to confess that I am waiting for the other shoe to drop at any moment. But in all sincerity I have observed your interactions with other posters who come from my perspective and I can completely understand why you might be somewhat hesitant, exasperated or even gunshy to enter into those conversations.

@kuonphobos: @willpayton:

I realized yesterday that I am God. How I realized this is due to the fact that I prayed every night and after many years of observations, I realized I was talking to myself.

I'm not sure if you realize how close you really are to the truth.

lol

@kuonphobos said:

Good discussion so far, BTW. While I'm by no means an expert on philosophy, it's fun to discuss it with someone who's approaching things from a slightly different point-of-view.

That's generally the problem with experiential evidence, although I think it's a problem whether you assume a materialistic or non-materialistic position. For example, lets say that we both have non-materialistic worldviews. Then, I make the claim "I know Zeus exists because I saw and talked with him last night". Ok... do you believe me? How can I convince you? I really cant, but it's not because of materialism. It's because, logically, I have no way to support the claim I just made.

I'll have to think on this one some more, but I'm not sure I agree. More specifically, the main pillars of scientific and empirical data are that 1) things are true if they are observed to be true (i.e. not just theorized to be true) and 2) data must be reproducible. To me, logically, those should apply to any worldview. If not, it's just too easy to convince yourself of false conclusions.

It's certainly a possibility that I have overlooked or ignored some evidence because of bias (either consciously or not). That's why I like to engage in these discussions, because it's possible that someone will bring up an argument or piece of evidence that I'm not aware of or have dismissed.

Yeah the video on the historicity of Jesus is really interesting, and worth watching all the way through. I didnt much have an opinion on the subject beforehand, but he makes a good argument that Jesus actually never existed.

By "popular" I only meant "most common". So, as far as things like a god or gods, many of the arguments made by William Lane Craig, and other more traditional religious scholars. I have really tried to look at as many arguments for the supernatural as I can find, including for ghosts, mental powers, etc,... but I have yet to find one that meets even basic rules of evidence and logic. I'm still open to such evidence or arguments... just very skeptical at this point, since I just see the same arguments over and over.

No need to apologize.

Ahh, ok. Yeah, the issue with these types of evidence is just that you cant demonstrate them to someone else, or even duplicate them in many cases. So while they may be convincing to yourself, you really cant even be sure that they happened. I mean, if we knew for sure that humans were infallible... then we could reasonably say that intuition or revelation were valid evidence of a phenomenon, correct? But, we're not infallible... or at least that's a postulate that I'm throwing out there. =) So, given humans are not infallible... what is the effective difference between a revelation and a hallucination? Do you see what I mean? Mental hospitals are full of people who are convinced that they have previously and continue to experience things that dont actually exist. I'm not saying that everyone who makes such a claim is crazy... only that, how can I tell the difference?

I think that agreeing that logic is a fundamental starting point is actually a big thing. Once you have that, you can proceed to discuss things like assumptions, what arguments and how much evidence can be considered "convincing", and what are or arent "facts". I dont mind admitting that my position is based on assumptions, because logic itself is a set of assumptions. The important thing is to acknowledge those assumptions and be willing to change them.

So far this has been a good discussion because I think we're both making reasonable claims, backing them up with logical arguments, and then honestly listening to the others counter-arguments. The main thing that really gets to me in these threads is that people dont argue from a willingness to understand, but only to restate what they believe even in the face of facts that contradict those beliefs.

I admit that I can get exasperated in some of these threads (the religion thread is the worst one), but it's never because someone disagrees with me. It's usually when people jump in just to make completely unsupported claims about things that are pretty much considered facts by 99.9% of the scientific community, then I proceed to write up a post giving reasons/evidence to the contrary, and then two pages after another person jumps in to make the same inane claims. This seems to happen over and over... and over. And, usually their reply is to the effect of "well I dont believe scientists because I know better than they do about X". Usually "X" of course is either evolution or physics.

@willpayton said:

@cable_extreme said:

@kuonphobos: @willpayton:

I realized yesterday that I am God. How I realized this is due to the fact that I prayed every night and after many years of observations, I realized I was talking to myself.

So If I am God, yet I believe in no higher power, am I an Atheist still?

@cable_extreme said:

@willpayton said:

@cable_extreme said:

@kuonphobos: @willpayton:

I realized yesterday that I am God. How I realized this is due to the fact that I prayed every night and after many years of observations, I realized I was talking to myself.

So If I am God, yet I believe in no higher power, am I an Atheist still?

Ha ha!

This shouldn't die out.

Agreed.

@awesam said:

False. Atheists don't believe in magic.

"When it comes to bullsh!t, big-time, major league bullsh!t, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullsh!t story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullsh!t story. Holy Sh!t!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is f#cked up."

-George Carlin.

@erik said:

@awesam said:

False. Atheists don't believe in magic.

I do...

@awesam said:

@erik said:

@awesam said:

False. Atheists don't believe in magic.

I do...

Bad atheist!

@erik said:

@awesam said:

@erik said:

@awesam said:

False. Atheists don't believe in magic.

I do...

Bad atheist!

If god doesn't exist, then why do we have coconuts? They didn't create themselves! Must be...

Aliens.

Well this OP says it for Agnostics too, so I may as well set up camp here :P

@awesam said:

Even that beats the logic of women being made from a man's rib made out of dirt.

<---- Existenalist.

@jeanralphio said:

@awesam said:

Even that beats the logic of women being made from a man's rib made out of dirt.

*Insert Denial Joke here*

@swordmasterd said:

@jeanralphio said:

@awesam said:

Even that beats the logic of women being made from a man's rib made out of dirt.

*Insert Denial Joke here*

If that is what people think atheism is, then, wow....

@cable_extreme: I'm not bothered by that, I'm bothered by the fact that people think atheism is centered around science >_>

Because atheists tend to accept the evidence of science.

@awesam said:

Well to be fair the Big Bang wasn't an actual explosion but a gradual expansion.

Some of my fav idols are athiests :)

@awesam: well the difference between atheism and religion is that atheist take a very "scientific" view on life. We tend to disbelieve in unsubstantiated claims. For example, if someone claimed an omnipotent, invisible, undetectable being exist, then I wonder how such a being was determined to exist in the first place. We look at everything and base our views on what is verifiable, and factual. This is why we tend to adhere to science because that is the method we use to determine our beliefs.

How awesome would it be to have an Atheist president?

Ugh, please don't associate Agnosticism with Atheism....

To each his or her own. I don't have an issue with anyone's religious (or "lack" of) views. We're all comics fans here and that is good enough for me. Not my job to judge.

I find agnosticism a lot less grating than atheism. Personally.

Atheism :P

Whoa, old thread!

It should be a pretty empty thread considering it's a lack of claim/belief ;)

lol whats the thread for? Sharing critical views on the worlds religions with the up-most scrutiny? I find threads dedicated to a particular demographic rather wastes of time due to the fact their always going to breed hatred due to the less intellectual or hateful.

@nighthunder: The world's religions? Surely you mean only the Abrahamic ones? O_o

are you saying atheists are only capable of scrutinizing and critizing abrahamic relgions? Atheism is the lack of beleif in a God, not the lack of beleif oin the abrahamic God.

@nighthunder: It was a tongue-in-cheek comment ;)

@maccyd

okay mate

Don't actually understand the purpose in this.

Wait, how do athiest get their own thread but the other religions don't? That's not fair!

May yer soul suffer eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell, ya rowdy atheists!

@sc you have a home now ?!

Atheism.............................................ha!

Everyone's an atheist one way or another

http://www.comicvine.com/forums/off-topic-5/atheism-what-do-you-think-1659985/?page=1#reply

Bumping, after my own atheism-related thread was locked for allegedly being 'the same' as this one. So, going back to the original question, I was just wondering- what you guys (and girls) think of atheism, and what are your own views with regards to theism/atheism?

@rpgesus: Here you go. ^_^.

Heh, atheism