This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: 10 Myths about atheism  (Read 23721 times)

Akrasia

  • Old One
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
    • http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com/
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2006, 06:56:01 PM »
Quote from: Spike
Obviously those with a vested interest in religion (including worshippers, by the way) dislike, even hate those who can get along without.  Hate may be a strong word.  It's groupthink, and Atheists are outside that group.

Let me see if I can refine this a bit, clarify the sentiment....


I think that you provide a plausible psychological explanation for why religious people in the U.S. dislike/distrust atheists.  However, as plausible as this explanation might be, it is not generally going to be useful when engaging in debates with anti-atheist religious folk.  For that, you need to address the arguments that religious people actually make, even if those arguments are exceedingly lame (since, sadly, the lameness of the arguments in question has not prevented widescale acceptance of them).

In other words, what you're doing here is trying to provide an expanation for why Americans adopt anti-atheist beliefs and attitudes.  In contrast, the article is trying to provide a set of refutations to arguments made by Americans who have adopted anti-atheist beliefs and attitudes.  

Naturally, these are compatible projects, but they are nonetheless distinct.
RPG Blog: Akratic Wizardry (covering Cthulhu Mythos RPGs, TSR/OSR D&D, Mythras (RuneQuest 6), Crypts & Things, etc., as well as fantasy fiction, films, and the like).
Contributor to: Crypts & Things (old school 'swords & sorcery'), Knockspell, and Fight On!

GRIM

  • Purveyor of filth
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
    • http://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2006, 07:08:00 PM »
Quote from: Spike
Myth: Atheists are immoral...yadda yadda. Sure, real myth, real problem. Pointing out that 'Atheists are more likely.... due to their belief that this life matters...' is the same sort of bullshit moralizing that the religious types do. Atheists are people. Some will belive that, sure, but many will shrug and move on with their lives. Some will give up the ghost and eat a bullet in the face of an uncaring universe.


Difference is he/we can point to statistical proof that it certainly appears that atheists are more 'moral' than the average and definately more moral than those who _profess_ christianity in the US. Lower divorce rates, lower numbers - by proportion - in prisons.

The data isn't perfect and atheists also tend to be amongst those of higher intelligence, higher education and better social circumstances than those of faith (which skews the statistics) but it's there and so this isn't bullshit moralising since it is based upon actual evidence.
Reverend Doctor Grim
Postmortem Studios - Tales of Grim - The Athefist - Steemit - Minds - Twitter - Youtube - RPGNOW - TheGameCrafter - Lulu - Teespring - Patreon - Tip Jar
Futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2006, 07:14:05 PM »
Quote from: Akrasia
).

 In contrast, the article is trying to provide a set of refutations to arguments made by Americans who have adopted anti-atheist beliefs and attitudes.  

Naturally, these are compatible projects, but they are nonetheless distinct.



Certainly there has been a slight bit of drift in the nature of my posts (due to questions, naturally), but:

I disagree that the article is a decent refutation of anything but itself.   I could suggest that leading people to more rational thought about atheists is the answer (under the premise that atheists are caused by excessively rational thinking... or that rational thought removes irrational dislikes...)  but in fact I don't think it would work. Purportedly the article IS going about spreading rationality.  Badly.

If Atheists need defending, which I won't dispute is a serious possiblity at some point, it will have to be with the weapons of the enemy. Feel good stories and 'heroes' of our society upholding their atheistic beliefs as part of their integral happiness, show how atheists can build and contribute to communities as surely as religious people.  As terrible as it sounds (nay, is) make a fucking church of atheism, adopt their behavioral patterns and reduce the psychological irratant factor to some extent.   Fill the vacuum, if you will.


I'll explain the vacuum: Atheists tear down the church, the belief structures and social compact that they carry with them but, as far as the religiously minded are concerned, erect nothing in its place. No moral code, no organization, no social compact.  When you say Joe is a catholic, in their mind is a whole body of lore you take for granted about what it means to be Catholic. When you say Joe is an Atheist, other than disbelief of god there is nothing there, a void, a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum, and thus they want to fill the vacuum with poorly concieved myths.  Even the article writer, presumably an Atheist, or pro-atheism guy has filled that vaccuum somewhat with his blanket statements about atheists, many of which ring hollow to my ears.

It is the nature of the beast to catagorize and label, and atheists don't lend themselves well to labeling and grouping... one of the many ways they irritate the community.

Of course, as a rationalist thinker myself (other than Doug, the great Sky Pikachu who will consume my soul upon death..., I'm allowed one irrational belief), I have to refrain from bitch-slapping the average wiccan I run into every time they open their mouths.  I can forgive the conventional religious types, they've been indoctrinated for millenia. Every time someone tells me flat out they are a Wiccan... or an atheist for that matter, and it WASN"T a conversation about personal beliefs, I just want to slap 'ATTENTION WHORE" stickers across their foreheads to shut them up.

But that's me.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

Akrasia

  • Old One
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
    • http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com/
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2006, 09:38:34 PM »
Quote from: Spike
... I disagree that the article is a decent refutation of anything but itself....


:confused:

Quote from: Spike

...  I could suggest that leading people to more rational thought about atheists is the answer (under the premise that atheists are caused by excessively rational thinking... or that rational thought removes irrational dislikes...)  but in fact I don't think it would work. Purportedly the article IS going about spreading rationality.  Badly...


:confused:

What is it for a belief to be 'caused by excessively rational thinking'?  What the fuck is 'excessively rational thinking'?

I think that people should form beliefs on the basis of reason (evidence, logic, abduction, etc.).  Failing that, what beliefs they do have, if not based on reason, should at least be compatible with reason.  All other beliefs should be rejected.

If that makes me 'excessively rational' then that's a label I will gladly accept.

Quote from: Spike

If Atheists need defending, which I won't dispute is a serious possiblity at some point...


It seems to be necessary now, at least in the U.S.  Atheists are one group regularly 'criticised', 'mocked', etc. by talking heads and politicians in that country.  For completely bullshit reasons.

Quote from: Spike

 ... Feel good stories and 'heroes' of our society upholding their atheistic beliefs as part of their integral happiness, show how atheists can build and contribute to communities as surely as religious people...
 

I'm not sure why such a strategy could not be combined with also explaining why common 'arguments' against atheism are rubbish.

These are not incompatible strategies.  The article in question simply pursues one of many strategies that atheists should employ to improve the U.S. public's perception of them.

Quote from: Spike

No moral code, no organization, no social compact...
 

:confused:

It's starting to dawn on me that you buy into some of the complete rubbish that people think about atheists in the U.S.

Quote from: Spike

Even the article writer, presumably an Atheist, or pro-atheism guy has filled that vaccuum somewhat with his blanket statements about atheists, many of which ring hollow to my ears.


What 'blanket statements' 'ring hollow' to your ears?

I'm an atheist, as are most of my colleagues and friends.  The author's comments generally 'rang true' to my ears.  Yes they're generalisations, and thus many exceptions exist.  But they didn't strike as wrong-headed at all.

Quote from: Spike

It is the nature of the beast to catagorize and label, and atheists don't lend themselves well to labeling and grouping... one of the many ways they irritate the community...


Um, okay.  So what?

Quote from: Spike
... Every time someone tells me flat out they are a Wiccan... or an atheist for that matter, and it WASN"T a conversation about personal beliefs, I just want to slap 'ATTENTION WHORE" stickers across their foreheads to shut them up.

But that's me.


Well it seems pretty damned fucked up to lump atheists in with Wiccan.  What is your problem?  

Also, why is explaining that you're an atheist to someone make you an 'ATTENTION WHORE'?  If someone's making some stupid religion-based point in conversation, I don't think that it's inappropriate to remark that you don't believe in supernatural entities.
RPG Blog: Akratic Wizardry (covering Cthulhu Mythos RPGs, TSR/OSR D&D, Mythras (RuneQuest 6), Crypts & Things, etc., as well as fantasy fiction, films, and the like).
Contributor to: Crypts & Things (old school 'swords & sorcery'), Knockspell, and Fight On!

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2006, 02:45:10 AM »
Quote from: Akrasia


Also, why is explaining that you're an atheist to someone make you an 'ATTENTION WHORE'?  If someone's making some stupid religion-based point in conversation, I don't think that it's inappropriate to remark that you don't believe in supernatural entities.



It isn't explaining to someone that you are an atheist that makes you an attention whore, it's bringing it up in casual conversations... any old conversation, that makes you an attention whore.    I expect my freinds to know my belief structure, especially if 'non-standard'. I don't expect casual aquaintences or even random strangers know it.  If they happen to find out, I'm cool with that, but impressing upon them that I am 'different' is different from dying your hair purple and tattooing your face in approach.

To give you an example: I was participating in a group activity about 13 years ago. 400 strangers all together for the first time. One of the coordinators was discussing religious observences and the facilities that were available.  Pretty comprehensive list, really.  One guy stands up and demands that they tell him, right then and there, where and when the services for Norse Pagan's were, as that was his faith.   He could have done the same thing with zoraosterism and probably gotten the same dumbfounded look. It had nothing to do with his beliefs and everything to do with 'look at me, I'm a precious snowflake'. All to often I've found 'pagans' and 'wiccans' to be excessively public with their 'faith'.

I've met a fair number of atheists who act the same way. The guys who go to church groups just to denounce them, the people that found churches of atheism.  People who go online and denounce religious types as delusional and insane.

Main stream religious types aren't immune to attention whoring, by no means. It just is a bit more egregious in 'alternative' faiths it seems.  Certainly I've met more than a few 'pagan' types who I was 99% certain had adopted the faith just to be 'different' or because it was 'cool'.  Hardly things to build a belief structure on.


I'm sorry if my post confused you, but you seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that I am out to attack atheists in general, and that I take umbrage at the entire concept of 'disbelief'.  Far from it. I mock this article, this particular 'defense' of atheism, just as I mock posters at this site for their extremist point of view.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

Akrasia

  • Old One
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
    • http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com/
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2006, 03:24:06 AM »
Quote from: Spike
It isn't explaining to someone that you are an atheist that makes you an attention whore, it's bringing it up in casual conversations... any old conversation, that makes you an attention whore...
 

Well, I should think that this would be irritating no matter the belief system in question.

I would find such behaviour most annoying in a Christian, even if Christianity was the 'dominant' religion of the country/area in which I lived.

Quote from: Spike
...
Main stream religious types aren't immune to attention whoring, by no means. It just is a bit more egregious in 'alternative' faiths it seems.  Certainly I've met more than a few 'pagan' types who I was 99% certain had adopted the faith just to be 'different' or because it was 'cool'.  Hardly things to build a belief structure on...


The mere fact that Americans consider atheism an 'alternative' faith (a la neo-paganism) is what I find so disturbing.

Pretty much anywhere else in the Western world, stating that you're an atheist would not raise an eyebrow.
RPG Blog: Akratic Wizardry (covering Cthulhu Mythos RPGs, TSR/OSR D&D, Mythras (RuneQuest 6), Crypts & Things, etc., as well as fantasy fiction, films, and the like).
Contributor to: Crypts & Things (old school 'swords & sorcery'), Knockspell, and Fight On!

Pseudoephedrine
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5927
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2006, 03:40:00 AM »
So Spike, your position is basically "I met a rude jerk who called himself a pagan many years ago, so this article about atheism is trite"?
Running
The Pernicious Light, or The Wreckers of Sword Island;
A Goblin's Progress, or Of Cannons and Canons;
An Oration on the Dignity of Tash, or On the Elves and Their Lies
All for S&W Complete
Playing: Dark Heresy, WFRP 2e

"Elves don't want you cutting down trees but they sell wood items, they don't care about the forests, they''re the fuckin' wood mafia." -Anonymous

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2006, 11:46:40 AM »
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine
So Spike, your position is basically "I met a rude jerk who called himself a pagan many years ago, so this article about atheism is trite"?



If thats what floats your boat, sure.  You won't win any medals for reading comprehension, but maybe you don't care.


Akrasia: Try saying you are an atheist in a muslim nation.  Most of them are actually pretty cool with christians, though the rise of intolerence is noted.  Its those damn pagans... and worse still, the non-believers that are the problem.  

As for Europe, which is what I suspect you mean when you say the 'rest of the western world'... Europe plus Canada, the rise of secularism has been fairly well documented, while Americans, oddly enough, remain much more attached to their faiths, as do many latin americans.  Obviously, when secularism is on the rise, concern over matters of faith drop off.   This then could be the true defense of Atheism then? Making faith less popular?   I'm sure it would work to an extent.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

James McMurray

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • J
  • Posts: 4790
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2006, 12:03:04 PM »
Quote from: Akrasia
The mere fact that Americans consider atheism an 'alternative' faith (a la neo-paganism) is what I find so disturbing.


Belief without proof = faith, ergo atheism is a faith. Not sure about the 'alternative' part, but if you mean "not mainstream" or "not one of the big three" then it's definitely 'alternative'.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2006, 12:15:53 PM »
Obviously, "militant atheists" will tend to be attention whores.  The average "nonbeliever" won't, and often the distinction is as simple as whether the guy makes a point of calling himself an atheist, or just saying that he doesn't believe in God.

An atheist is already an aggresive, positive stance, you are holding a position.  Therefore you will argue for it to a certain degree, and since most atheists are "converts", that degree is usually pretty high.
Whereas just being a nonbeliever is merely the absence of a position. Note that a non-believer and an agnostic are two different things, though both tend to be equally unoffensive; an agnostic doesn't know, a nonbeliever simply rejects, but these are both different from a militant atheist.

And yes, wiccans are attention whores. That's the whole point of wicca, to feel that you're part of a different special group of different special people, with a built in persecution complex, ridiculous claims regarding history and spiritual powers, and an insistence on being treated special for one's beliefs.  
Come to think of it, that's pretty much what evangelical christianity is like too, they just appeal to a different demographic.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2006, 12:26:22 PM »
Kudos to the Pundit for stating my position in general on Atheists and Wiccans much more clearly than I was. Of course, none of that addresses the article, which is what I was trying to do.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https:

Akrasia

  • Old One
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
    • http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com/
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2006, 01:17:22 PM »
Quote from: RPGPundit
Obviously, "militant atheists" will tend to be attention whores...

Being 'millitant anything' makes one an attention whore.  I don't see why atheists should be singled out.
RPG Blog: Akratic Wizardry (covering Cthulhu Mythos RPGs, TSR/OSR D&D, Mythras (RuneQuest 6), Crypts & Things, etc., as well as fantasy fiction, films, and the like).
Contributor to: Crypts & Things (old school 'swords & sorcery'), Knockspell, and Fight On!

Akrasia

  • Old One
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3353
    • http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com/
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2006, 01:26:39 PM »
Quote from: James McMurray
Belief without proof = faith, ergo atheism is a faith. Not sure about the 'alternative' part, but if you mean "not mainstream" or "not one of the big three" then it's definitely 'alternative'.


Rubbish.

I don't know what you mean by 'proof', but atheism does not involve 'belief without justification'.

The notion that atheism requires 'faith' is one of the biggest bullshit myths held by people (especially in the U.S.) these days.

There is a very well established logical argument in philosophy against the existence of a benevolent (or ‘just’) deity -- it is called the 'problem of evil'.  (There are other arguments available, but I'll simply mention this one for the sake of convenience.) It has been around for many centuries, and was famously presented as a deductive argument by the Oxford philosopher John Mackie in the mid-20th Century.

The argument is pretty straight forward, and I use it to introduce undergraduates to basic logic. It holds, roughly, that suffering ('evil') exists, including both 'moral evil' (suffering caused by human beings, e.g. murder, rape, etc.) and 'natural evil' (suffering caused by natural events, e.g. diseases, famines, tsunamis, etc.). The basic problem is that widespread suffering cannot be reconciled logically with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent (or just) deity. It is one of a number of compelling arguments against belief in a 'traditional' God (another holds that the very idea of 'God' is logically incoherent).

Very roughly, the ‘problem of evil’ argument states:

1. If God exists (as understood by the main monotheistic religions), he is omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent
2. If suffering exists, God cannot be omniscient & omnipotent & omnibenevolent (at most he can only be two of those things, e.g. he might be all-knowing and all-powerful, but not care about the existence of widespread suffering).
3. We know suffering exists.
4. Therefore God does not exist (i.e. any God that is omniscient & omnipotent & omnibenevolent).

It is clearly a valid argument (if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true). Whether it is sound depends on the truth of its premises. Presumably religious folk dispute the truth of premise 2.

All leading contemporary analytic philosophers working in the philosophy of religion -- including, of course, theists -- recognize the strength of the 'problem of evil' argument. There are a few responses out there on behalf of theism, but none are especially impressive, in my opinion.

The argument shows, I think, that atheism is not simply a system of belief with no greater justification than, say, Christianity or Islam. The arguments against the existence of a benevolent deity are logically compelling; the arguments in favour of the existence of a benevolent deity are not.

The 'problem of evil' says nothing about 'higher beings' (super aliens?) that are not omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. The argument is simply directed against the traditional conception of God, as found in the main monotheistic religions. According to traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. If there is a God that is, say, merely omnipotent and omniscient, but not benevolent, that would be quite interesting. However, I can see no reason to worship such a creature.

In short, atheists have rational grounds for their rejection of a 'triple-O' God (i.e. the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism).  Thus it is not based on 'faith' (belief without rational justification).
RPG Blog: Akratic Wizardry (covering Cthulhu Mythos RPGs, TSR/OSR D&D, Mythras (RuneQuest 6), Crypts & Things, etc., as well as fantasy fiction, films, and the like).
Contributor to: Crypts & Things (old school 'swords & sorcery'), Knockspell, and Fight On!

Mr. Christopher

  • Taste the Rainbow
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • M
  • Posts: 229
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2006, 01:42:08 PM »
I think these alt.atheism definitions may help the conversation:

Strong atheism is the belief that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that strong atheists consciously reject theism. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the absence of belief in deities, without the belief that deities do not exist. The strong atheist believes, at the very least, that no deities exist, and may further believe that the existence of certain deities is logically impossible.

Self-described "strong atheists" commonly hold a naturalistic world view, rejecting belief in supernatural entities or processes in general. However, spiritual or supernatural beliefs would not preclude someone from being a strong atheist, or from being an atheist in general; although there may be a correlation with other beliefs, the term atheism itself only reflects beliefs regarding deities.

Agnosticism is distinct from weak atheism, though most weak atheists may be agnostics, and most agnostics may be weak atheists.

Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, without the belief that deities are non-existent. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is the belief that no deities exist, and with theism, which is the belief that there is at least one deity. Weak atheism may either be a form of explicit atheism, that is, a conscious rejection of belief in deities, or implicit atheism, an absence of belief in deities without a conscious rejection of theism.

Restatement of the concept: Where theists believe that one or more deities exist and strong atheists believe that no gods exist, weak atheists hold neither belief.

Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. It is a broader view than weak agnosticism, which states that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable.

Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown, but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.

Weak agnosticism is in contrast to strong agnosticism, in which the agnostic believes that the existence of any gods is not only unknown, but is also unknowable to humanity. Neither type of agnosticism is fully irreconcilable with theism (belief in a deity or deities) nor strong atheism. A weak agnostic who also considers themselves a theist is likely in a state of doubt, though they are not necessarily having a crisis of faith. Weak agnosticism often overlaps with, and is often confused with, weak atheism, as both are a lack of belief rather than a belief in lack (of either knowledge or existence, respectively).
Why are there so many songs about rainbows and what's on the other side? Rainbows are visions, but only illusions, and rainbows have nothing to hide.

Spike

  • Stroppy Pika of DOOM!!!!!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8105
  • Tricoteuse
10 Myths about atheism
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2006, 02:00:39 PM »
Quote from: Akrasia
Rubbish.

I don't know what you mean by 'proof', but atheism does not involve 'belief without justification'.

The notion that atheism requires 'faith' is one of the biggest bullshit myths held by people (especially in the U.S.) these days.

Very roughly, the ‘problem of evil’ argument states:

1. If God exists (as understood by the main monotheistic religions), he is omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent
2. If suffering exists, God cannot be omniscient & omnipotent & omnibenevolent (at most he can only be two of those things, e.g. he might be all-knowing and all-powerful, but not care about the existence of widespread suffering).
3. We know suffering exists.
4. Therefore God does not exist (i.e. any God that is omniscient & omnipotent & omnibenevolent).

It is clearly a valid argument (if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true). Whether it is sound depends on the truth of its premises. Presumably religious folk dispute the truth of premise 2.

).



You already bolded the important part.  IF the premises are true.  Let us look at this properly.

First of all, if your 'atheism' is predicated only on rejection of Judeo-christian belief structures you have a narrow perspective.  Properly speaking, you should be rejecting faiths which have no relation to the J-C ideal.    Without being the subject matter expert I believe Buddism explains quite adequately why there is suffering in the world.  That's just off the top of my head, and happens to be the single largests NON-J/C faith out there. Presto, you've just invalidated your entire premise that Atheism can be 'proven' by logically looking at the 'problem of evil'.  

Your argument is not against belief in 'higher powers' it is against the human interpretation of a specific set of 'higher powers' and is as flawed as the article.

While I've already argued why God could not be omnisceint and omnipotent in the truest defintions of the word, I've very rarely... in fact NEVER heard it said that God was 'Omnibenevolent'.  I've heard it said that God was good, yes. that He was benevolent and kind, sure. But 'All Benevolent'? Not once.  The best method of explaining your 'problem of evil' would be that God is teaching us something when we suffer from natural evil, and that human evil is a direct result of free will.  You do remember that fundamental part of J-C doctrine, right? Free will?  True, Islam rejects it, but then Islam doesn't claim god is particularly benevolent either.  Calling on 'merciful allah' is more a request that He BE merciful, rather than a declaration of God's nature.  

Thus, your entire post is suffering the same problem as the original article: You set your arguements up for an easy win. Its a hollow victory, meaningless.  Expand your disbelief out from the narrow J/C perspective and your arguements will have more force.

I won't even touch on our idea that faith isn't required to be an atheist.  You have faith that you are correct, that your rational arguements and logic problems have disproven God.  But, may I remind you of the logical impossibility of proving a negative?   You might be able to prove the existance of God with enough evidence, but you can never fully prove He doesn't exist. Thus 'reasonable doubt'.
For you the day you found a minor error in a Post by Spike and forced him to admit it, it was the greatest day of your internet life.  For me it was... Tuesday.

For the curious: Apparently, in person, I sound exactly like the Youtube Character The Nostalgia Critic.   I have no words.

[URL=https: