Atheism: What's the point?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

http://www.katolik.nu/now/html/mirac.htm

Here's some miracles I forgot to talk about. There's many instances of the Eucharist actually turning into flesh on the scene. Creepy, but true.

Yummy!

[Grave_n_idle]

I was seven years old when Kennedy was shot, and I remember the events of that weekend with astonishing vividness.

And how old was Tacitus when 'Jesus' was crucified?

[Gift-of-god]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

With, apparently, some scientific confirmation that it occurred.

http://www.negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/mirac ... l#RTFToC19

[Farnhamia Redux]

I was seven years old when Kennedy was shot, and I remember the events of that weekend with astonishing vividness.

And how old was Tacitus when 'Jesus' was crucified?

About -23, if you take the year of the crucifixion as 33 and Tacitus' birth year as 56.

[Grave_n_idle]

He is reporting his memories of how people talked in the 60's, when "procurator" had been the title in Judea for over a generation and there was no particular reason for anybody except a pedant to recall that the title had once been "prefect"

Yeah, only a historian would care about details like that.

What?

[Grave_n_idle]

Read the Koran. Let Muhammad into your heart. Or read the Bhagavad Git. Let Krishna into your heart. Read the Avesta, and let the Zoroaster into your heart.

Why stop at Jesus?

'Stopping at Jesus' is evidence of the fact that no real rigour is applied. An argument is trotted out that is supposed to be challenge the non-believer, but it's more of a challenge than the protagonist would be willing to egngage in themselves.

[Grave_n_idle]

However, we can assert that belief in the supernatural began without the first believers being indoctrinated into such a system from birth. That is, it is plausible that religion sprang up naturally and independently within various early human tribes, and simply evolved into more complex rituals and belief systems as the society progressed. Is it so preposterous to suggest that some sort of spirituality within human communities is indeed natural, and may serve an important social purpose?

I've previously argued that humans - collectively - have a predisposition towards seeking answers bigger than they are. Spirits, interventionist ancestors, creator gods - all are easily explained by this idea, and it explains why some cultures have spirits, some have fairy folk, some have gods or ghosts... and some have more than one of those brackets.

But those answers are likely to have been divined by philosophers of their age - not as innate knowledge in newborns.

[Tmutarakhan]

He is reporting his memories of how people talked in the 60's, when "procurator" had been the title in Judea for over a generation and there was no particular reason for anybody except a pedant to recall that the title had once been "prefect"

Yeah, only a historian would care about details like that.

What?

Tacitus frequently gives us accurate accounts of the rumors circulating in Rome, although the rumors themselves were not particularly accurate as to the facts. He is what he is.

[Grave_n_idle]

From an old song lyric:
"If you choose not to decide you have still made a choice"

I didn't choose not to decide, though - I didn't make any choices except to dig deeper.

I'd argue that you have made a choice. You've looked at the evidence, and made an informed decision. There's nothing wrong with that.

I lost faith, and THEN I looked for evidence, to try to have my own 'paradise, regained'.

Again - there's no point at which I chose.

I'm sorry to hear you having such a hard time of it. Hang in there. Be true to yourself, and well, that's the best we can do.

That's what I do.

You are the first Atheist I've ever encountered who wanted to be a Theist.
I don't exactly know what to say about that.

Lots of Atheists wish they had the kind of assurance and comfort that people can find in religion. The idea that - no matter how bad you are, someone would always forgive you? That kind of idea is very seductive. The idea that you are always loved? That there ARE answers? That there IS a point to seemingly capricious happenstance?

The idea that - when a child near you gets a terminal illness, it's because thre's something BETTER for them?

Those ideas would be wonderful things to believe.

Have you tried not wanting to be a Christian? I mean, have you tried telling people that you just don't believe in it and that's that and please just accept me for who I am?

Yes.

If that doesn't make you happy... If you truly want to be a Christian... and you're just disillusioned with some of the denominations you've encountered:

It's not that I'm disillusioned with some denominations (well, I am with some, obviously) - it's a lack of belief.

Have you ever studied Hermeneutics? Most Christian religions do not read the Bible literally.

I've tried it both ways.

It is not uncommon to define atheism as a rejection of belief in the divine or a rejection of the belief in the supernatural. Which definition is applicable depends on the context of the discussion. Since this topic is a rather meandering (sometimes pejorative) discussion, I guess we'll just have to deal with all of them.

I'm an Implicit Atheist.

I don't say 'there is no god', (which I consider to be a statement of faith), I say that I simply 'don't believe in god(s)'.

I'm not denying god. I accept a god could be the truth and I could be wrong. But... there's just no mechanism to get from that position to believing.

I could SAY I believed... but who would that help?

Nice to meet you!

Likewise.

[Grave_n_idle]

What is the logical conclusion for the premise that ALL babies are born atheists?

To worship god, you have to know god.
Babies don't know god.
Ergo babies don't worship god.

But if ALL babies are born atheist, then according to that premise God would have to have been created by an atheist?

No, because the choices aren't... 'nothing'/'god'.

Stories evolve - this is not new information.

In order to illustrate, let me sketch a concept - tribal person hears thunder and sees rain. Tribal person has noticed that rain makes the vegetables grow better. Logical conclusion - the sound of thunder is somehow an expression of the promise of the gift of food. It's not hard to find anthropomorphic personification in this - the sound is the voice, the rain is the gift of the fertility spirit or fertility god.

The first spirits and gods are likely to be fairly simplistic, functional, and limited in scope. This kind of mechanism can actually be seen at work in the history of the Egyptian pantheon, where you can watch new entities being subsumed into older entities, and new functions being acquired.

[Kamsaki]

Just because some believe that doesn't mean that all do. To give an example to try to make sure that the point is understood:
Some theists believe that jesus christ is the savior, this does not mean that all do.

I understand where you're coming from on this. On the other hand, try analysing the statement "Some Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Saviour, this does not mean that all do." It's not obvious whether it's true or not. Do all Christians believe in the idea of saving? Does everyone who subscribes to this idea consider themselves a Christian? Is someone telling the truth if they contradict the first part of that statement?

Language shifts and distorts in an almost biological manner when it becomes used as an identifier rather than a descriptor - obvious examples being political parties (National Socialism, Labour, Republican) and commercial products (Office, Mars, Lynx). The question is, at what point does this distortion actually create a fork in meaning? And can your descriptor be retained if it has been misappropriated in this manner?

[Grave_n_idle]

i will say babies are not atheist. ill call them "uncorrrupted" by any side and any definition...

Right.

That makes them atheists.

[Hydesland]

i will say babies are not atheist. ill call them "uncorrrupted" by any side and any definition...

Right.

That makes them atheists.

A baby is born with no knowledge of whether a God exists or not. By definition, agnostic means literally 'no knowledge of'. Are you saying the term atheist means the same as the term agnostic?

[Grave_n_idle]

There is a difference between atheism and agnosticism.

I do not believe in God. I also do not believe in his absence. I have doubts about each option. That's agnosticism.

Atheism is the belief that the world lacks a God or similar supernatural component.

The 'belief' there is no god, is EXPLICIT Atheism.

Most Atheists (in my experience) are much closer to IMPLICT Atheism - that is, a lack of faith, rather than faith in a lack.

You can be agnostic as well, most are. That's not a statament about belief or lack of it - that's a statement about whether it's possible to KNOW.

[Kamsaki]

A baby is born with no knowledge of whether a God exists or not. By definition, agnostic means literally 'no knowledge of'. Are you saying the term atheist means the same as the term agnostic?

(aside)
Does anyone know if this logical form is a commonly named fallacy? I mean, I can tell that

No Knowledge = Agnostic.
No Knowledge -> Atheist
Atheist = Agnostic

doesn't work as reasoning, and I can also tell that there must be some occasions when people would like to say it does, but I'm not aware of having come across it before in a discussion context.

[Grave_n_idle]

I was seven years old when Kennedy was shot, and I remember the events of that weekend with astonishing vividness.

And how old was Tacitus when 'Jesus' was crucified?

About -23, if you take the year of the crucifixion as 33 and Tacitus' birth year as 56.

Right.

So Tacitus' text on the cruci-fiction is somewhat less reliable than my 10 year old daughters text on the death of Kurt Cobain.

[Grave_n_idle]

He is reporting his memories of how people talked in the 60's, when "procurator" had been the title in Judea for over a generation and there was no particular reason for anybody except a pedant to recall that the title had once been "prefect"

Yeah, only a historian would care about details like that.

What?

Tacitus frequently gives us accurate accounts of the rumors circulating in Rome, although the rumors themselves were not particularly accurate as to the facts. He is what he is.

Right. Tacitus is a recorder of gossip.

And he's the best source we have in terms of contemporary, independent reporting.

[Grave_n_idle]

i will say babies are not atheist. ill call them "uncorrrupted" by any side and any definition...

Right.

That makes them atheists.

A baby is born with no knowledge of whether a God exists or not. By definition, agnostic means literally 'no knowledge of'. Are you saying the term atheist means the same as the term agnostic?

No.

A baby is born with no knowledge, AND no belief. The two are connected, but they are not synonyms.

[Hydesland]

Does anyone know if this logical form is a commonly named fallacy? I mean, I can tell that

It is but I forget the name.

[Hydesland]

No.

A baby is born with no knowledge, AND no belief. The two are connected, but they are not synonyms.

Ok, but the problem is, almost everyone has some sort of doubt about the issue of whether God exists or not. Very few people claim to know for sure, so almost everyone is an agnostic. In common usage, the word is almost always used to convey that the person is unsure of what he believes, I have found.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Have you all read an article in Time Magazine called: Decoding God's Changing Moods? It's quite interesting and it mentions something I've never thought of before in paragraph 15. You should check it out.

[Grave_n_idle]

No.

A baby is born with no knowledge, AND no belief. The two are connected, but they are not synonyms.

Ok, but the problem is, almost everyone has some sort of doubt about the issue of whether God exists or not. Very few people claim to know for sure, so almost everyone is an agnostic. In common usage, the word is almost always used to convey that the person is unsure of what he believes, I have found.

Most theists claim to know that god exists.

I accept there can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists... but, we're not really talking about agnosticism, except in the abstract. Implicit Athesits tend towards agnosticism.

Babies are agnostic by default - it's not that they believe they can never know, they just have no frame of reference for knowing.

They are also atheistic by default - since they also lack belief.

[Ashmoria]

No.

A baby is born with no knowledge, AND no belief. The two are connected, but they are not synonyms.

Ok, but the problem is, almost everyone has some sort of doubt about the issue of whether God exists or not. Very few people claim to know for sure, so almost everyone is an agnostic. In common usage, the word is almost always used to convey that the person is unsure of what he believes, I have found.

if you have no belief in (any) god you are an atheist no matter if you hold out the possibility that there are gods in the world or not.

babies have no belief in (any) god or the supernatural of any sort. they are atheists. when their minds have developed enough to understand the concept of the supernatural, they may well become theists. until they they cant be theists.

[Hydesland]

Most theists claim to know that god exists.

No, most claim to know God, that's slightly different, and it all usually breaks down to confusing use of language and sophistry. For instance, I had a conversation recently with my mother who was claiming that she knew God, and had a relationship with him. When I asked "how do you know for sure it's not just a psychological creation", she claimed she didn't know for sure, so she doesn't know God exists after all. Often theists will say that they know in their heart that God is real, they will often also say that their material and 'deceptive' brain will still cast doubt at times. You've got to understand that the word 'know' is often not used in a strict literal philosophical sense. The whole concept of faith is central to religion, and faith is essentially belief without knowledge.

They are also atheistic by default - since they also lack belief.

How do you know? Maybe their default perspective is that there must be some causative entity, at the very least a basic prime mover, to what he/she experiences. Just like many babies believe that the first person they see must be their mother, or creator, or whatever.

[Hydesland]

No.

A baby is born with no knowledge, AND no belief. The two are connected, but they are not synonyms.

Ok, but the problem is, almost everyone has some sort of doubt about the issue of whether God exists or not. Very few people claim to know for sure, so almost everyone is an agnostic. In common usage, the word is almost always used to convey that the person is unsure of what he believes, I have found.

if you have no belief in (any) god you are an atheist no matter if you hold out the possibility that there are gods in the world or not.

babies have no belief in (any) god or the supernatural of any sort. they are atheists. when their minds have developed enough to understand the concept of the supernatural, they may well become theists. until they they cant be theists.

There are other ways of not being an atheist, other than not believing or being aware of any specific God. For instance, I could believe that there must be some sort of creator to the universe, but have no experience of it and no idea what the creator is like, this would make me not an atheist, but also would not make me believe or be aware of any specific God.