Atheism: Philosophically Redundant?

[ProHypster]

Fine, I'm taking this to the highest level.

 

Excerpt from Encyclopaedia Brittanica:

 

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

 

The dialectic of the argument between forms of belief and unbelief raises questions concerning the most perspicuous delineation, or characterization, of atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It is necessary not only to probe the warrant for atheism but also carefully to consider what is the most adequate definition of atheism. This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism. In the course of this delineation the section also will consider key arguments for and against atheism.

 

To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways. First, not all theologians who regard themselves as defenders of the Christian faith or of Judaism or Islām regard themselves as defenders of theism. The influential 20th-century Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, for example, regards the God of theism as an idol and refuses to construe God as a being, even a supreme being, among beings or as an infinite being above finite beings. God, for him, is “being-itself,” the ground of being and meaning. The particulars of Tillich’s view are in certain ways idiosyncratic, as well as being obscure and problematic, but they have been influential; and his rejection of theism, while retaining a belief in God, is not eccentric in contemporary theology, though it may very well affront the plain believer.

 

Second, and more important, it is not the case that all theists seek to demonstrate or even in any way rationally to establish the existence of God. Many theists regard such a demonstration as impossible, and fideistic believers (e.g., Johann Hamann and Søren Kierkegaard) regard such a demonstration, even if it were possible, as undesirable, for in their view it would undermine faith. If it could be proved, or known for certain, that God exists, people would not be in a position to accept him as their sovereign Lord humbly on faith with all the risks that entails. There are theologians who have argued that for genuine faith to be possible God must necessarily be a hidden God, the mysterious ultimate reality, whose existence and authority must be accepted simply on faith. This fideistic view has not, of course, gone without challenge from inside the major faiths, but it is of sufficient importance to make the above characterization of atheism inadequate.

 

Finally, and most important, not all denials of God are denials of his existence. Believers sometimes deny God while not being at all in a state of doubt that God exists. They either willfully reject what they take to be his authority by not acting in accordance with what they take to be his will, or else they simply live their lives as if God did not exist. In this important way they deny him. Such deniers are not atheists (unless we wish, misleadingly, to call them “practical atheists”). They are not even agnostics. They do not question that God exists; they deny him in other ways. An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God’s existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

 

Yet it remains the case that such a characterization of atheism is inadequate in other ways. For one it is too narrow. There are atheists who believe that the very concept of God, at least in developed and less anthropomorphic forms of Judeo-Christianity and Islām, is so incoherent that certain central religious claims, such as “God is my creator to whom everything is owed,” are not genuine truth-claims; i.e., the claims could not be either true or false. Believers hold that such religious propositions are true, some atheists believe that they are false, and there are agnostics who cannot make up their minds whether to believe that they are true or false. (Agnostics think that the propositions are one or the other but believe that it is not possible to determine which.) But all three are mistaken, some atheists argue, for such putative truth-claims are not sufficiently intelligible to be genuine truth-claims that are either true or false. In reality there is nothing in them to be believed or disbelieved, though there is for the believer the powerful and humanly comforting illusion that there is. Such an atheism, it should be added, rooted for some conceptions of God in considerations about intelligibility and what it makes sense to say, has been strongly resisted by some pragmatists and logical empiricists.

 

Check whole argument here:

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

[danielsangeo]

Sounds good. Verbose, but good. Atheism is defined by what it isn't: Belief in deities. If you believe in ghosts, you can still be an atheist. If you believe in bigfoot, you can still be an atheist. If you believe in space aliens, you can still be an atheist. If you believe in magic, you can still be an atheist. If you're a Democrat, Republican, Tory, Green, Independent, Left-Winger, Right-Winger, communist, socialist, capitalist, fascist...really, almost anything....and you can be an atheist.

 

The only defining characteristic is a lack of belief in deities (from God to Zeus to Ahura Mazda, and more). Anything else is something else.

[danielsangeo]

both creationalists and evolutionists have "proof" for their theory.

 

"Evoutionists" have evidence. "Creationalists".....don't.

[ProHypster]

both creationalists and evolutionists have "proof" for their theory.

 

"Evoutionists" have evidence. "Creationalists".....don't.

 

If you are going to play the word game then I'm just going to have to define the key word:

 

Evidence

 

1.

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2.

something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3.

Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

 

Now if I honestly think God is a rational belief and have supporting arguments then it is "evidence" for me and for Creationalism by the first two definitions.

 

Same goes with Evolution.

 

You just don't believe in monotheism therefore you don't have/accept any evidence for him.

[danielsangeo]

Now if I honestly think God is a rational belief and have supporting arguments then it is "evidence" for me

 

But, it's not evidence. At all. There is nothing that as ever been provided which proves 'creationalism'.

 

You just don't believe in monotheism therefore you don't have/accept any evidence for him.

 

What evidence do you have? I've asked many creationists for their evidence for God/creation.....and always get the run around, but never evidence. Where is it? Why can I NEVER get the evidence? It's like a big secret or something.

[BTGBullseye]

But, it's not evidence. At all. There is nothing that as ever been provided which proves 'creationalism'.

That is because you are incapable of looking at things from any point of view other than your own.

 

What evidence do you have? I've asked many creationists for their evidence for God/creation.....and always get the run around, but never evidence. Where is it? Why can I NEVER get the evidence? It's like a big secret or something.

Because you don't accept any evidence provided. It would conflict with your belief system to even consider any other belief.

[ProHypster]

You just don't get it........

BT, thank you, exactly what I wanted to say.

 

In any case I'm an agnostic, I'm not a true monotheist, so please stop thinking of me as defending monotheism.

 

I defend logic and fairness.

[danielsangeo]

Because you don't accept any evidence provided. It would conflict with your belief system to even consider any other belief.

 

How can I accept evidence if there is no evidence? Look, this is just the run around. AGAIN.

 

Provide the evidence and I'll look at it. If I have questions, I'll ask them. I'll put it through the standards of rigor that all the evidence that comes to me goes through. If you've got something, I'll admit it. I have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong. But insulting me is just a waste of your time.

[ProHypster]

In ancient Greece (469 - 399 BC) Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran up to him excitedly and said, Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students?"

 

"Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before you tell me I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test."

 

"Triple filter?"

 

"That's right," Socrates continued, "before you talk to me about my student, let's take a moment to filter what you're going to say. The first filter is TRUTH. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"

 

"No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it and..."

 

"All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second filter, the filter of GOODNESS. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?"

 

"No, on the contrary..."

 

"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him, even though you're not certain it's true?"

 

The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.

 

Socrates continued. "You may still pass the test though, because there is a third filter - the filter of USEFULNESS. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?"

 

"No, not really."

 

"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me in neither True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?"

[Rover]

But, it's not evidence. At all. There is nothing that as ever been provided which proves 'creationalism'.

That is because you are incapable of looking at things from any point of view other than your own.

 

What evidence do you have? I've asked many creationists for their evidence for God/creation.....and always get the run around, but never evidence. Where is it? Why can I NEVER get the evidence? It's like a big secret or something.

Because you don't accept any evidence provided. It would conflict with your belief system to even consider any other belief.

 

If there is so much evidence supporting your viewpoint, why is not represented in the scientific literature? I'm asking an honest question, and can you answer it without resorting to a conspiracy?

 

Continental drift theory was once a much ridiculed upstart hypothesis, invented by a meteorologist and championed by only very few scientists. There was no known mechanism at its inception which could explain how it would work. Yet over the years as evidence mounted, papers were published and the idea gained traction. It changed the mind of the scientific community through peer reviewed research which was built on empirical evidence. Plate tectonics is now taught in every school in the industrial world. Why has creationism not yet done the same?

[danielsangeo]

@ThatSmartGuy:

 

Excellent! *air guitar*

[BTGBullseye]

If there is so much evidence supporting your viewpoint, why is not represented in the scientific literature? I'm asking an honest question, and can you answer it without resorting to a conspiracy?

There is no conspiracy. It's a simple fact that most people are incapable of entertaining the notion that some other belief system is right while their's is wrong. Almost all take offense at the thought that they might fall into that category.

 

Continental drift theory was once a much ridiculed upstart hypothesis, invented by a meteorologist and championed by only very few scientists. There was no known mechanism at its inception which could explain how it would work. Yet over the years as evidence mounted, papers were published and the idea gained traction. It changed the mind of the scientific community through peer reviewed research which was built on empirical evidence. Plate tectonics is now taught in every school in the industrial world.

Plate tectonics is an observed & recorded event. Evolution is not. Once it is, then you will have evidence.

 

Why has creationism not yet done the same?

Because we have our own schools that do teach creation. There are even a few public schools that teach creation now. That, and we aren't stuck up about it and have to force our beliefs on others to feel good about ourselves.

[ProHypster]

Alyxx! Alyxx!! They're debating Evolution vs Creationalism in the "Atheism: Philosophically redundant Thread"!

[BTGBullseye]

Alyxx! Alyxx!! They're debating Evolution vs Creationalism in the "Atheism: Philosophically redundant Thread"!

Quite, I forgot what thread we were in since the argument was going that way...

 

Back on topic I am. (I hope others will be too)

[ProHypster]

This topic ended 3 pages ago when we (Dan-95, the creator of this topic, me, Alyxx, most people) agreed what Atheism is and noone denied the agreement.

[Axeldeath]

*sigh* and once again... No evidence given.

[BTGBullseye]

*sigh* and once again... No evidence given.

From either side.

[ProHypster]

For it to be denied by some other believer again?

 

The minute I post

The evidence against macro-evolution and naturalism includes: (1) no fossil transitional forms have been found; (2) more than 10,000 professional scientists believe in biblical creation and 85 percent believe in God; (3) the probability that the DNA molecule is the result of chance and time is zero; (4) the laws of thermodynamics; (5) molecular mechanisms, for example vision, are irreducibly complex and could never evolve; (6) the Cambrian explosion where basic animal groups appeared suddenly without evidence of ancestors.

someone's going to provide counter "evidence" to this "evidence".

 

And it's going to go on forever, sort of like this:

 

Ok, no more crap on this topic please. Only if you want to add something to Atheism being philosophical or not or actually only if you deny what we agreed on pg. 10.

[Axeldeath]

-_- Check the atheism vs. creationism taught in schools thread if you want evidence, even if you think it's all wrong you haven't actually given us ANY evidence to inspect.

 

*edit* Yep my last post on here.

[danielsangeo]

For it to be denied by some other believer again?

 

The minute I post

The evidence against macro-evolution and naturalism includes: (1) no fossil transitional forms have been found; (2) more than 10,000 professional scientists believe in biblical creation and 85 percent believe in God; (3) the probability that the DNA molecule is the result of chance and time is zero; (4) the laws of thermodynamics; (5) molecular mechanisms, for example vision, are irreducibly complex and could never evolve; (6) the Cambrian explosion where basic animal groups appeared suddenly without evidence of ancestors.

someone's going to provide counter "evidence" to this "evidence".

 

That's how it works. Also, that's not evidence at all, but if you want to continue this, I have revived the Evolution vs Creation thread with these questions.