Intelligence Squared - Atheism is the new fundamentalism

[chloe]

VVppTZxFn3Q


LsxXwYkQmi0


http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/atheism-is-the-new-fundamentalism

[chloe]

The motion proposes that "atheism is the new fundamentalism", i.e., atheism has replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age, exploring the notion that modern atheism is itself guilty of the very dogma and belief in its own infallibility which it scorns in the religious community.

Speaking for the motion are Richard Harries and Charles Moore.

Richard Harries outlines the features and the history of fundamentalism, arguing that many of the criteria required for it are in fact apparent in today's atheists. He portrays a set of people with narrow views, arguing against a specific view of God, who forget that some of the greatest philosophy, art, poetry and music has been inspired and supported by Christianity – the very belief system that is accused of restricting the creative process by its refusal to allow for ‘the grand perhaps’ (Browning).

Charles Moore insists that his opponents cannot see the true complexity of the argument, and that they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding. He criticises Richard Dawkins for embodying this crude and narrow pursuit of literal truth above all else.

Opposing the motion are A.C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins.

Professor Grayling maintains that since 9/11, the nature of the debate on religious commitment has become far more serious. He distinguishes between atheism, secularism and humanism. He refutes Moore's suggestion that atheists cannot fully understand the complexity of the religious experience, insisting that many atheists understand it all too well, having been brought up in a religious family or community.

Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism.

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/atheism-is-the-new-fundamentalism

[Noir]

If i may ask, has there ever been an American head of state that is Atheist or at the very least Agnostic?

[chloe]

If i may ask, has there ever been an American head of state that is Atheist or at the very least Agnostic?


Obama:laugh2:

[Noir]

Obama:laugh2:

lol, it'll take that as a no then, interesting,

[chloe]

lol, it'll take that as a no then, interesting,

Have you watched this debate before?

[Noir]

Have you watched this debate before?

Nope,, am watching it at the moment, i have seen dawkins debate many times and am on the whole am very supportive of him, however the debates he is in are normally to short for detailed discussion, buth as there are 140 mins of video i hope the detail will be here,

i like the idea that has been mentioned that Religions are akin to other interest groups,

[chloe]

Nope,, am watching it at the moment, i have seen dawkins debate many times and am on the whole am very supportive of him, however the debates he is in are normally to short for detailed discussion, buth as there are 140 mins of video i hope the detail will be here,

i like the idea that has been mentioned that Religions are akin to other interest groups,

The people debating seem pretty intelligent on both side and mature about it too.:beer:

[Noir]

The people debating seem pretty intelligent on both side and mature about it too.:beer:

True, even if two of them have an imaginary friend :p

[chloe]

True, even if two of them have an imaginary friend :p

or do they?......;)

[Noir]

or do they?......;)

You mean they may be closet athiests :eek:
:p

Though no doubt some people are, like the fact that no Pres. has been athiest, could someone be voted into office who is athiest? Or would they have to lie just to become a candidate?

[chloe]

You mean they may be closet athiests :eek:
:p

Though no doubt some people are, like the fact that no Pres. has been athiest, could someone be voted into office who is athiest? Or would they have to lie just to become a candidate?


I think Obama is an atheist, his mother was, so .....

[Noir]

I think Obama is an atheist, his mother was, so .....

Indeedy, but not an open atheist, i'm sure if he was asked, or if he has been asked then he would say Christian. Which then would suggest that Americans do not want the best possible candidate to be president, but rather, the best Christian candidate to be pres. but of-course not seeing a difference between the two.

[chloe]

Indeedy, but not an open atheist, i'm sure if he was asked, or if he has been asked then he would say Christian. Which then would suggest that Americans do not want the best possible candidate to be president, but rather, the best Christian candidate to be pres. but of-course not seeing a difference between the two.

Agreed

[Noir]

Epic win for Dawkins,

video 8, 6 minutes in, Christian guy lays and attack - thinking he's being smart, leaves himself wide open, Dawkins tears him apart, and the other Christian then jumps in with 'oh you can't say that' :laugh2:

[chloe]

Epic win for Dawkins,

video 8, 6 minutes in, Christian guy lays and attack - thinking he's being smart, leaves himself wide open, Dawkins tears him apart, and the other Christian then jumps in with 'oh you can't say that' :laugh2:

I liked the debate they all had interesting points in my opinion:cool:

[PostmodernProphet]

If i may ask, has there ever been an American head of state that is Atheist or at the very least Agnostic?

sorry Noir, there are some very basic intelligence requirements that presidential candidates are required to meet.....atheists simply aren't up to our standards.....

[Pericles]

sorry Noir, there are some very basic intelligence requirements that presidential candidates are required to meet.....atheists simply aren't up to our standards.....

It's true, no atheist could ever meet the standard of intelligence set by George W. Bush! I guess what gave Junior so much wattage was that "Chris' chang'd m'life"...

[Noir]

sorry Noir, there are some very basic intelligence requirements that presidential candidates are required to meet.....atheists simply aren't up to our standards.....

:lame2:

[PostmodernProphet]

:lame2:

no, I'm serious....how can you trust the judgment of someone who makes a faith choice that there is no deity, then pretends he acts only from reason......one cannot be an atheist and truly understand the process of "reason"......

[Noir]

no, I'm serious....how can you trust the judgment of someone who makes a faith choice that there is no deity, then pretends he acts only from reason......one cannot be an atheist and truly understand the process of "reason"......

What utter tosh, this is nothing sort of blind ignorance, if someone doesn't think like you think they should think, then they must be unintelligent. Get off your high horse,

[chloe]

no, I'm serious....how can you trust the judgment of someone who makes a faith choice that there is no deity, then pretends he acts only from reason......one cannot be an atheist and truly understand the process of "reason"......

The debate was good for both sides, however sicne they do have an atheist camp for kids and atheist childrens stories it would the atheist are ogranized like fundamentalist religion. They indoctrinate philosophy, science and reasoning instead of faith in God. That is their freewill choice, but its hardly random it is definately an organized group.

[Gaffer]

Since I don't want to be a part of the atheist religion I'm going to have to come up with something else. Too many of these guys are starting to sound like preachers on Sunday.

[Noir]

Having watched the debate I think that the athiests come out clear winners, the motion was that 'Athiesm is the new fundementalism' and it is won in a few sentances.

The Christains try and attack the athiests for having a Bus campain, and then try and laugh at the because it said there was 'probably' no god. The athiests quickly reply with 'what could be more fundementalist than saying there definatly is'
Case closed, athiests win.

[chloe]

Since I don't want to be a part of the atheist religion I'm going to have to come up with something else. Too many of these guys are starting to sound like preachers on Sunday.

Maybe you should be agnostic, the atheists & christians hardly hear from the agnostics, they must prefer to lay low or keep things to themselves....:cool:

[Gaffer]

Fundamentalists are fundamentalists no matter what ilk. Atheists are becoming a religion unto themselves. And for them to say there is "probably" no god is not atheist. That is a hypocritical statement. The Hog man would say they are PC indoctrinated.

[Noir]

Fundamentalists are fundamentalists no matter what ilk. Atheists are becoming a religion unto themselves. And for them to say there is "probably" no god is not atheist. That is a hypocritical statement. The Hog man would say they are PC indoctrinated.

LOL

Talk about a catch 22, so if Atheists say there is defiantly, 100% no God then we would be accused of making a leap of faith, and being fundamentalist. But if we say what we believe, i.e. that there is probably no god you call us hypocrites? How so? What is hypocritical about saying there is probably no god?

[Gaffer]

LOL

Talk about a catch 22, so if Atheists say there is defiantly, 100% no God then we would be accused of making a leap of faith, and being fundamentalist. But if we say what we believe, i.e. that there is probably no god you call us hypocrites? How so? What is hypocritical about saying there is probably no god?

Because an atheist believes there IS NO GOD. If you say there could be, then your a deist or an agnostic, not an atheist.

[Noir]

Because an atheist believes there IS NO GOD. If you say there could be, then your a deist or an agnostic, not an atheist.

I do not believe in god, in the same way i do not believe in fairies, or Thor, or Apollo ect ect, as i am sure you also do not believe in fairies and Thor ect. But you would not call yourself a Fairy Agnostic.

You can never be 100% certain about anything to do with gods, anyone who does say they are certain one way or another is lying.

So call me whatever you like, the label is irrelevant, the fact is that i can not say for certain there is no god, in the same way you can not tell me for certain there is a god.

Edit - However, while atheists realise this, and thus have signs saying their is 'probably' no god, Christians do not, and thus they have signs saying 'Jesus saves' ect as a statement of fact.

[PostmodernProphet]

What utter tosh, this is nothing sort of blind ignorance, if someone doesn't think like you think they should think, then they must be unintelligent. Get off your high horse,

not at all......atheists are obviously not rational, based upon the essence of their beliefs......they claim to act solely upon reason, rather than faith.....yet, they make an assertion "there is no god" which can only be reached through faith, a belief choice made in the absence of evidence....

if they were rational they would acknowledge they had made a faith choice....by insisting they are acting rationally, they demonstrate their irrationality.....

[PostmodernProphet]

LOL

Talk about a catch 22, so if Atheists say there is defiantly, 100% no God then we would be accused of making a leap of faith, and being fundamentalist. But if we say what we believe, i.e. that there is probably no god you call us hypocrites? How so? What is hypocritical about saying there is probably no god?

it's really quite simple, Noir....simply admit the truth...that you CHOOSE not to believe in a god....a simple statement of faith without the arrogance of demanding to be viewed as rationally superior.....

[Noir]

it's really quite simple, Noir....simply admit the truth...that you CHOOSE not to believe in a god....a simple statement of faith without the arrogance of demanding to be viewed as rationally superior.....

I think there is probably no god, and thus live my life as if there is none, in the same way that i think there is probably no tooth fairy and live my life as if there is none, and so forth, but can i say for fact there is not? Ofcourse i can't.

[Noir]

not at all......atheists are obviously not rational, based upon the essence of their beliefs......they claim to act solely upon reason, rather than faith.....yet, they make an assertion "there is no god" which can only be reached through faith, a belief choice made in the absence of evidence....

if they were rational they would acknowledge they had made a faith choice....by insisting they are acting rationally, they demonstrate their irrationality.....

So if you were given the deciding vote on who should become president, one was well educated and had spent his life working in embassies and had a passion for politics, but was an atheist, and the other was a regular joe bloggs who worked in a cafe all his life and had no academic qualifications but was a Christian, who would you chose?

[Gaffer]

So if you were given the deciding vote on who should become president, one was well educated and had spent his life working in embassies and had a passion for politics, but was an atheist, and the other was a regular joe bloggs who worked in a cafe all his life and had no academic qualifications but was a Christian, who would you chose?

Sounds like a choice between and elitist and a shmoe. We already have them in washington. The dark lord and his jester bidon. I will vote for someone that represents the people.

[Pericles]

not at all......atheists are obviously not rational, based upon the essence of their beliefs......they claim to act solely upon reason, rather than faith.....yet, they make an assertion "there is no god" which can only be reached through faith, a belief choice made in the absence of evidence....

if they were rational they would acknowledge they had made a faith choice....by insisting they are acting rationally, they demonstrate their irrationality.....

PostmodernProphet, as you should know, atheism as a worldview is a response to the thesis of theism - that is, to the thesis that there exists an omni-potent personality which is the ultimate source of the physical and moral order in the cosmos. Atheism is the belief - not the faith - that that thesis is false.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence that is open to any public assessment. Atheism is the belief that the thesis of theism is false, mostly on the basis of the forms of evidence furnished by reflective reason.

The first and most obvious reason for the rejection of the thesis of theism, is that this thesis fails the burden of proof. Again, as I said, atheism only appears in the context of theistic belief. The thesis of theism first has to be put forward, in order for it to be accepted or rejected. Hence the burden of proof is upon the theist, to demonstrate that the being he worships exists. He is the one who is proposing that the divine object that he talks about as existing, is not just hot air. So he has to adduce some evidence to convince others of the truth of what he believes.

This demonstration, I should add, does not have to be incontrovertible - it doesn't require a mathematical level of rigor. It just has to be convincing to a disinterested third party reflecting on the matter in good faith (so to speak).

Now, the very concept of faith involves dispensing with the burden of proof. Faith, again, explicitly allows for belief in the absence of publically verifiable evidence. Religious faith, then, if not irrational, is at least arational.

So, theism fails the burden of proof. That is one reason not to accept the thesis. But there are others. Not only has the theist made no case in his own favor, but the atheist can put forward a raft of arguments for why the thesis should be counted as false. These arguments are not a matter of faith. They are grounded in experience and reflective reason. Once we have put forward these arguments, the burden of proof shifts once again to the theist, to show how these arguments are lacking, and how their failure points to the truth of theism.

PostmodernProghet, you're the guy who's the most outspoken one on this board about the truth behind the claims of faith; yet instead of actually giving a rational defense of the thesis of theism, the best you can do is try to label atheism as a "faith" - i.e. as a worldview with no more rational backing than your own. But I'm calling you on it - you're not going to get away with that little manuever.

[Noir]

Sounds like a choice between and elitist and a shmoe. We already have them in washington. The dark lord and his jester bidon. I will vote for someone that represents the people.

There was no third option, it was one or the other.

Again the question boils down to who do you want...the best man for the job or the best Christian for the job?

And PMP, i would assume you believe this extends to other sectors? like Doctors, teachers, judges ect.

[Pericles]

I do not believe in god, in the same way i do not believe in fairies, or Thor, or Apollo ect ect, as i am sure you also do not believe in fairies and Thor ect. But you would not call yourself a Fairy Agnostic.

This is an excellent point.


You can never be 100% certain about anything to do with gods, anyone who does say they are certain one way or another is lying.

This is the kind of forthright honesty - or even, dare I say it? - true humility that you get from a humanist. The believers on this board could learn from Noir, here.


So call me whatever you like, the label is irrelevant, the fact is that i can not say for certain there is no god, in the same way you can not tell me for certain there is a god.

Edit - However, while atheists realise this, and thus have signs saying their is 'probably' no god, Christians do not, and thus they have signs saying 'Jesus saves' ect as a statement of fact.

Again, great post. As I pointed out in my last post, a justified belief often does not have to be supported by a level of mathematical rigor. Proof with a capital P is not available for most of our objects of discourse. In fact, such proofs really only appear in discourses that are deliberately constructed to be purely, or almost purely, formal - discourses like logic and mathematics. The standard of truth we operate with most of the time in our daily lives, is truth beyond a reasonable doubt. The theist claims that there's this invisible guy constantly looking over your shoulder, seeing if you're being naughty or nice. Is that claim true beyond a reasonable doubt - ? HELL, no... So it is both honest and correct for atheists to say, that there is probably no deity. The chance that one does exist is infinitesimally small, but it cannot be ruled out completely.

Unless, anyway, it could be shown that the existence of the god of theism, is logically impossible. Personally, I think you can make a pretty strong case for the logical impossiblity of God's existence. But that would be for a thread of its own.

[Missileman]

Belief in a deity is not the result of reason, it's the result of indoctrination and brainwashing. If it were the result of reason, then ALL equally intelligent people would arrive at an identical conclusion and believe in exactly the same dogma and deity.

[Noir]

Belief in a deity is not the result of reason, it's the result of indoctrination and brainwashing. If it were the result of reason, then ALL equally intelligent people would arrive at an identical conclusion and believe in exactly the same dogma and deity.

Indeedy, i don't think how smart someone is has anything to do with belief, there are plenty of smart people who are Religious, and plenty who are not, likewise there are plenty of idiots on both sides. To try and say, as PMP has, that there is a correlation between reason and religious belief is just plain stupid.

[chloe]

I think nobody watched the debate but you and me noir.:laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

So if you were given the deciding vote on who should become president, one was well educated and had spent his life working in embassies and had a passion for politics, but was an atheist, and the other was a regular joe bloggs who worked in a cafe all his life and had no academic qualifications but was a Christian, who would you chose?

a better candidate for the opposing party......

[PostmodernProphet]

PostmodernProphet, as you should know, atheism as a worldview is a response to the thesis of theism - that is, to the thesis that there exists an omni-potent personality which is the ultimate source of the physical and moral order in the cosmos. Atheism is the belief - not the faith - that that thesis is false.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence that is open to any public assessment. Atheism is the belief that the thesis of theism is false, mostly on the basis of the forms of evidence furnished by reflective reason.

The first and most obvious reason for the rejection of the thesis of theism, is that this thesis fails the burden of proof. Again, as I said, atheism only appears in the context of theistic belief. The thesis of theism first has to be put forward, in order for it to be accepted or rejected. Hence the burden of proof is upon the theist, to demonstrate that the being he worships exists. He is the one who is proposing that the divine object that he talks about as existing, is not just hot air. So he has to adduce some evidence to convince others of the truth of what he believes.

This demonstration, I should add, does not have to be incontrovertible - it doesn't require a mathematical level of rigor. It just has to be convincing to a disinterested third party reflecting on the matter in good faith (so to speak).

Now, the very concept of faith involves dispensing with the burden of proof. Faith, again, explicitly allows for belief in the absence of publically verifiable evidence. Religious faith, then, if not irrational, is at least arational.

So, theism fails the burden of proof. That is one reason not to accept the thesis. But there are others. Not only has the theist made no case in his own favor, but the atheist can put forward a raft of arguments for why the thesis should be counted as false. These arguments are not a matter of faith. They are grounded in experience and reflective reason. Once we have put forward these arguments, the burden of proof shifts once again to the theist, to show how these arguments are lacking, and how their failure points to the truth of theism.

PostmodernProghet, you're the guy who's the most outspoken one on this board about the truth behind the claims of faith; yet instead of actually giving a rational defense of the thesis of theism, the best you can do is try to label atheism as a "faith" - i.e. as a worldview with no more rational backing than your own. But I'm calling you on it - you're not going to get away with that little manuever.

I'm sorry, but that is one of the worst representations of atheism I have ever seen....atheism isn't simply the rejection of another belief system, it is the rejection of the existence of any deity.....there is no default belief, such that if someone else can't prove their faith is fact that yours automatically becomes the truth......if you choose to believe there is no god, then admit that you have simply chosen....don't pretend that you are justified in it simply because I can't "prove" my faith choice.....

[PostmodernProphet]

There was no third option, it was one or the other.

Again the question boils down to who do you want...the best man for the job or the best Christian for the job?

And PMP, i would assume you believe this extends to other sectors? like Doctors, teachers, judges ect.

I would reject ignorance in all professions, but if you make me choose between an atheist brain surgeon and a Christian veterinarian then my choice is to move to another state with better health care.....

[Noir]

I think nobody watched the debate but you and me noir.:laugh2:

I know, its as if everyone else have a life or something :laugh2:

[chloe]

I know, its as if everyone else have a life or something :laugh2:

The debate wasn't an all day event, if you have time to debate the debate you should watch it....wink

[PostmodernProphet]

This is the kind of forthright honesty - or even, dare I say it? - true humility that you get from a humanist. The believers on this board could learn from Noir, here.


lol.....and this is exactly the thing that makes atheists the most despised people around.....if only those crazy religious types were more like the rational atheists, the world would be a better place.....except, you are the least rational folks around.....

[chloe]

lol.....and this is exactly the thing that makes atheists the most despised people around.....if only those crazy religious types were more like the rational atheists, the world would be a better place.....except, you are the least rational folks around.....

I don't like that attitude in atheists or religious people. I don't know what it is called but it just doesn't seem kind.

[PostmodernProphet]

So it is both honest and correct for atheists to say, that there is probably no deity.

good point....but of course, that isn't what atheists say, is it....which is why they are neither honest or correct

[PostmodernProphet]

Personally, I think you can make a pretty strong case for the logical impossiblity of God's existence. But that would be for a thread of its own.

it would only appear "rational" to another atheist.....

[Noir]

a better candidate for the opposing party......

You do like to avoid answering questions with little one line quips, i guess they must be easier to think of than to face the reality of your answer.

[Noir]

The debate wasn't an all day event, if you have time to debate the debate you should watch it....wink

Very true,

The is a whole series of these debates, am currently watching - Intelligence Squared - We would be better off without religion.

[PostmodernProphet]

I To try and say, as PMP has, that there is a correlation between reason and religious belief is just plain stupid.

to pretend I have said that is even more stupid.....I have said there is a correlation between the faith choice of an atheist and religious belief....by no stretch of imagination could it be said I claimed your faith choice was rational.....

[chloe]

Very true,

The is a whole series of these debates, am currently watching - Intelligence Squared - We would be better off without religion.

It's a good website for watching people debate various topics.

[PostmodernProphet]

You do like to avoid answering questions with little one line quips, i guess they must be easier to think of than to face the reality of your answer.

I reject your question as irrational.....in what reality would those be the only choices....would I prefer to have a competent physician who was an atheist over an incompetent physician.....well, gee willikers, I suspect so.....would an otherwise competent physician who was an agnostic, or a Muslim, or a Christian or a Jew be better than one who is an atheist?.....without a doubt, because the atheist demonstrates irrationality while believing he possesses superior reason.....

[Noir]

to pretend I have said that is even more stupid.....I have said there is a correlation between the faith choice of an atheist and religious belief....by no stretch of imagination could it be said I claimed your faith choice was rational.....

You were the one that said "sorry Noir, there are some very basic intelligence requirements that presidential candidates are required to meet.....atheists simply aren't up to our standards....."

Thus saying that no Atheist will have the basic intelligence of any Christian. Correlating intelligence and Religious belief.

[PostmodernProphet]

You were the one that said "sorry Noir, there are some very basic intelligence requirements that presidential candidates are required to meet.....atheists simply aren't up to our standards....."

Thus saying that no Atheist will have the basic intelligence of any Christian. Correlating intelligence and Religious belief.

no....correlating "atheist" and "ignorance"....I have no problem with agnostics, they at least are honest about their beliefs......and I didn't limit it to Christians....I would vote for a Muslim or a Jew....I just won't vote for someone who is either dishonest or totally ignorant about what he actually believes......

[Noir]

no....correlating "atheist" and "ignorance"....I have no problem with agnostics, they at least are honest about their beliefs......and I didn't limit it to Christians....I would vote for a Muslim or a Jew....I just won't vote for someone who is either dishonest or totally ignorant about what he actually believes......

LOL,
I must ask, are you 100% sure there is a God as is depicted in the bible?

[Pericles]

I'm sorry, but that is one of the worst representations of atheism I have ever seen....atheism isn't simply the rejection of another belief system, it is the rejection of the existence of any deity.....there is no default belief, such that if someone else can't prove their faith is fact that yours automatically becomes the truth...

Our standard for truth can only be reflective reason and common sense. When you are making the claim of the existence of a being that is undetectable by our senses, and which does not serve as an hypothesis explaining why the world has the character and function that it does - then you are making an extra-ordinary claim, one that runs outside the bounds of reflective reason and common sense.

I'm willing to admit I'm mistaken in this judgement - if you can supply some reasons to believe in your Invisible Man. Again, because you are the one making an extra-ordinary claim, the burden is on you to provide evidence for that claim. You might not like it, but those are the rules of debate.

In any event, what you have not established - and cannot establish - is that atheism is a "faith." Atheism is the belief - based on publically evaluable reasons - that faith in supernatural beings is pure folly, because there is no reason to believe such beings exist at all. Unlike theism, atheism does not ask for blind assent, for belief in the absence of evidence (or in the teeth of counter-evidence; just this week we're seeing once again the cruel joke that is "divine providence").


...if you choose to believe there is no god, then admit that you have simply chosen....don't pretend that you are justified in it simply because I can't "prove" my faith choice.....

And here you are trying to get away with the very thing I called you out on in my last post! Sorry, but atheism is not a faith; I showed that in the arguments of my last post, arguments which you billed "the worst representations" but didn't even bother trying to counter. Unless you can bring something other than lame quips for your responses, the only conclusion is that it's your worldview that is founded on blind faith and irrationality.

[PostmodernProphet]

LOL,
I must ask, are you 100% sure there is a God as is depicted in the bible?

I have chosen to believe it with all of my heart, mind, and soul.....I have no left over percentage points......

[PostmodernProphet]

When you are making the claim of the existence of a being that is undetectable by our senses, and which does not serve as an hypothesis explaining why the world has the character and function that it does - then you are making an extra-ordinary claim, one that runs outside the bounds of reflective reason and common sense.
your claim, that there is no god, is equally beyond that which is detectable by our senses and runs beyond the bounds of reason.....it is a faith choice, as is mine.....simply admit that and stop pretending you have some logical basis for your beliefs....



I'm willing to admit I'm mistaken in this judgement - if you can supply some reasons to believe in your Invisible Man. Again, because you are the one making an extra-ordinary claim, the burden is on you to provide evidence for that claim. You might not like it, but those are the rules of debate.
the rules of debate apply equally.....if you could provide a reason to believe there is no god I would be compelled to join you, would I not?



In any event, what you have not established - and cannot establish - is that atheism is a "faith." Atheism is the belief - based on publically evaluable reasons - that faith in supernatural beings is pure folly, because there is no reason to believe such beings exist at all. Unlike theism, atheism does not ask for blind assent, for belief in the absence of evidence (or in the teeth of counter-evidence; just this week we're seeing once again the cruel joke that is "divine providence").

you see, this is where you lose credibility.....faith is a belief in the absence of evidence, not belief in the absence of arguments.....there is no such criteria as "publicly evaluable reasons"......

[PostmodernProphet]

I have been arguing with atheists on boards like this for over ten years.....literally hundreds of arguments...

without exception atheists...
1) fail to recognize that they are engaging in a faith choice...
2) feel superior to people who admit they are making a faith choice...
3) always reach the point, when pressed with their inconsistency, claim that they aren't REALLY an atheist because they will admit to the possibility of deity....

this happens so consistently that a redefinition of atheism has developed....there are now strong atheists, which encompasses the definition we used to know as "atheist", and weak atheists, which encompasses all atheists who have lost the argument we are currently having and no longer want to be considered atheists......

[Noir]

I have chosen to believe it with all of my heart, mind, and soul.....I have no left over percentage points......

Well there you are, you are certain about something which you can not be certain about.

Now I do not believe in any form of Gods or sprits or any supernatural forces. And am thus an athiest, but I am not certain that I am right, I could be wrong, just because I do not believe in them does not make their existance any less likly than if I did believe in them. The difference is I am willing to accept that I could be wrong, you are not, you are certain you are right, and then you have the nerve to try and call me ignorent and without 'basic intelect'

As for this while 'hard athiest' 'soft athiest' thing, anyone who tells me they know for certain there are no gods is a lier, for they can not know. In the same way that you can not tell me for certain there is a god, without lying. Athiesim is the belief that there are no gods/super-natural forces, and I believe that there are none, and am just an athiest, however, just because I do not believe there are Gods doesn't make it fact. So call me a 'soft athiest' If you want, I see it as a way for you to try and attack the extremes rather than the mainstrem by trying to belittle me with your wealth of debating experience.

[PostmodernProphet]

Well there you are, you are certain about something which you can not be certain about.

Now I do not believe in any form of Gods or sprits or any supernatural forces. And am thus an athiest, but I am not certain that I am right, I could be wrong, just because I do not believe in them does not make their existance any less likly than if I did believe in them. The difference is I am willing to accept that I could be wrong, you are not, you are certain you are right, and then you have the nerve to try and call me ignorent and without 'basic intelect'

As for this while 'hard athiest' 'soft athiest' thing, anyone who tells me they know for certain there are no gods is a lier, for they can not know. In the same way that you can not tell me for certain there is a god, without lying. Athiesim is the belief that there are no gods/super-natural forces, and I believe that there are none, and am just an athiest, however, just because I do not believe there are Gods doesn't make it fact. So call me a 'soft athiest' If you want, I see it as a way for you to try and attack the extremes rather than the mainstrem by trying to belittle me with your wealth of debating experience.
no, I'm not going to call you a soft atheist, I'm going to call you what you are.....an agnostic.....now, if I can just get you to stop calling yourself an atheist and confusing everyone we will be making progress.....

[Noir]

no, I'm not going to call you a soft atheist, I'm going to call you what you are.....an agnostic.....now, if I can just get you to stop calling yourself an atheist and confusing everyone we will be making progress.....

I do not believe in Gods or any supernatural forces.


a⋅the⋅ism  [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Agnostic
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

This i am an atheist.

However, i am not an idiot or a lier, and thus can not say for a fact that there is no god.

[PostmodernProphet]

I do not believe in Gods or any supernatural forces.





This i am an atheist.

However, i am not an idiot or a lier, and thus can not say for a fact that there is no god.

an atheist says there is no god.....you say you are an atheist.....you say that someone who says there is no god is an idiot or a liar......you have me confused.....

[Noir]

an atheist says there is no god.....you say you are an atheist.....you say that someone who says there is no god is an idiot or a liar......you have me confused.....

I do not believe in any gods, can i prove it? No. But i do not believe in them.

IF anyone says they are certain there are no gods then they are idiots.

In the same way anyone who says there is certainly a god is an idiot.

Because no one knows for sure, but that has no bearing on the fact that i believe there are no gods.

Its really rather simple.

[PostmodernProphet]

I do not believe in any gods, can i prove it? No. But i do not believe in them.

IF anyone says they are certain there are no gods then they are idiots.

In the same way anyone who says there is certainly a god is an idiot.

Because no one knows for sure, but that has no bearing on the fact that i believe there are no gods.

Its really rather simple.

until you say you are an atheist, which you have just defined as being an idiot.....by the way, when I said that at the beginning of this thread you took exception to it.....now, you're agreeing with me......

[Noir]

until you say you are an atheist, which you have just defined as being an idiot.....by the way, when I said that at the beginning of this thread you took exception to it.....now, you're agreeing with me......

You're just dancing around words.

I am an atheist, i do not believe in any gods, however, i can not say for certain that there are no gods, even tough i don't believe in them.

Its very simple.

I am not calling atheists idiots, nor am i calling people who are religious idiots, but anyone who says they are certain that there is or is not a god is an idiot.

[Pericles]

your claim, that there is no god, is equally beyond that which is detectable by our senses and runs beyond the bounds of reason.....it is a faith choice, as is mine.....simply admit that and stop pretending you have some logical basis for your beliefs....

Again, I am not the one who has initial responsibility of defending my claim. Atheism only is intelligible, given the thesis of theism. You're the one coming with this thesis; if you are going to insist that your beliefs are true in general, and not just a matter of your personal tastes, then the burden is on you to give some publically evaluable evidence for them.

If you can't do this, then your beliefs are no more relevant than any insane person's beliefs. And why should I have respect for the ravings of an insane person...?


the rules of debate apply equally.....if you could provide a reason to believe there is no god I would be compelled to join you, would I not?

Of course those rules apply. But again, you occupy the initial position - it makes no sense for me to give reasons for why there are no gods, if there is no one already believing in their existence. It is not enough for you to simply assert the existence of the gods; you have to give me a reason to believe it. The burden of evidence, again, is on you. Once you have given me some rational basis for agreeing with you, then, yes, the burden shifts to me to show what is wrong with your arguments. These are just the rules of debate 101. Are you telling me that in all the arguments you've had with atheists, these points have not been made clear to you?


you see, this is where you lose credibility.....faith is a belief in the absence of evidence, not belief in the absence of arguments.....there is no such criteria as "publicly evaluable reasons"......

PMP - with all due respect - you do not know what you are talking about. If you don't have evidence for your beliefs, you have nothing to base your arguments on. And there most certainly are publically evaluable reasons. They are reasons that are furnished by experience, reflective reason, or some combination of the two. They are what enable you to show me I am wrong, when I say that your belief is nothing other than a personal opinion.

Atheism cannot be a faith, because it is founded on reasons - reasons that are open to any rational being to evaluate for herself, according to the rules of reason. You really need to get past this lazy tac of trying to put atheism on the same unsupportable level as your own faith. If your faith makes any sense, then defend it - with a rational argument.

[PostmodernProphet]

You're just dancing around words.

I am an atheist, i do not believe in any gods, however, i can not say for certain that there are no gods, even tough i don't believe in them.

Its very simple.

I am not calling atheists idiots, nor am i calling people who are religious idiots, but anyone who says they are certain that there is or is not a god is an idiot.

I'm not the one dancing around words, I'm merely the one pointing out the steps and moves.....'atheist' has always meant a person who denied the existence of deity.....it's only been the last decade or two that we've seen this "weak atheist", "strong atheist" crap......

[Noir]

I'm not the one dancing around words, I'm merely the one pointing out the steps and moves.....'atheist' has always meant a person who denied the existence of deity.....it's only been the last decade or two that we've seen this "weak atheist", "strong atheist" crap......

Erm, well i'm sorry if you don't like it, but such is life. Also the last decade or two pretty much covers my whole life lol,
and i do deny the existence of deities, i'm just not so stupid as to assume that i must be right, as you do.

[PostmodernProphet]

Again, I am not the one who has initial responsibility of defending my claim. Atheism only is intelligible, given the thesis of theism. You're the one coming with this thesis; if you are going to insist that your beliefs are true in general, and not just a matter of your personal tastes, then the burden is on you to give some publically evaluable evidence for them.

because I'm not making a "claim" that has to be defended.....I am simply telling you what my faith choice is......if you don't like it you can simply tell me to go to hell.....

atheists, however, state that their choice is the result of a rational process.....that is a claim which ought to, but cannot, be defended......if you would simply say "this is my faith choice" I would have no problem with it.....again, I am not faulting you for your choice, simply for your unwarranted assumptions of superiority....


Of course those rules apply. But again, you occupy the initial position - it makes no sense for me to give reasons for why there are no gods, if there is no one already believing in their existence. It is not enough for you to simply assert the existence of the gods; you have to give me a reason to believe it. The burden of evidence, again, is on you. Once you have given me some rational basis for agreeing with you, then, yes, the burden shifts to me to show what is wrong with your arguments. These are just the rules of debate 101. Are you telling me that in all the arguments you've had with atheists, these points have not been made clear to you?

what isn't clear is the accuracy of your argument....there is no "initial position" unless it is that of the agnostic who says "I don't know".....I have what I believe, you have what you believe....it is not "logical" for you to hold your position because I have not "proven" mine......your position is as incapable of proof as mine is because they are both faith choices....I have no burdens of proof that are any different than yours......



Atheism cannot be a faith, because it is founded on reasons - reasons that are open to any rational being to evaluate for herself, according to the rules of reason. You really need to get past this lazy tac of trying to put atheism on the same unsupportable level as your own faith. If your faith makes any sense, then defend it - with a rational argument.

ah, but it is the atheist who has the lazy tactic.....you feel no reason to even examine the logic of your beliefs, because I have not proven to you that mine are correct....here is your challenge......show me these "rules of reason" that compel you to atheism, without referring even once to "you haven't proven to me that you are right".........

[Pericles]

because I'm not making a "claim" that has to be defended.....I am simply telling you what my faith choice is....

No, you are not. You are claiming that what you take as true, is true for the whole world, whether others agree or not; that your god is real in fact, and just something you like to entertain in your own mind. The claims that you are making in making your faith-choice, are extraordinary claims: that an Invisible, and immaterial Man exists, (?) and indeed exists in all places and times simultaneously (??) has the sole prerogative of defining 'right' and 'wrong,' (??) caused the whole universe to come into existence from nothing, (???) wants to save us from punishment which he will administer, and will do this on the basis of the choices that he pre-determines us to make (????). And this only scratches the surface of the catalogue of your fantastic beliefs, beliefs which you claim are as true for me as the law of gravity.

So please quit with that "it's only my faith choice" dodge and weave. Your choices are also claims to truth. You're making the claim, it's incumbent upon you to defend it.

But I'm betting you've got bruised up enough in your past exchanges with atheists, than to try it. Much cleverer, simply trying to place atheism on the same indefensible epistemic level as religion. Your arrogance here, I have to say is pretty breathtaking. You are in effect claiming, "There is an invisible elephant Dumbo who rules the universe!" I respond, "I don't see any elephant. What are you talking about?" Then you say, "Well, of course you can't. Dumbo is invisible." I simply reply, "Well, how do I know that this Dumbo is actually simply not there, as opposed to being there but invisible?" And all you can say is, "I just told you - Dumbo is invisible! So you're in no position to tell me that he's not there...!" The argument for an imaginary friend has the exact same structure, PMP. My disbelief in your friend is not some arbitrary, faith-choice. It is not arbitrary, any more than my disbelief in the actual existence of a myriad of invisible things - like Dumbo, above - is arbitrary.

We do not extend the presumption of existence, to things unseen. The claim of the actual existence of deity (as opposed to existence just in your mind) is an extraordinary claim. It is incumbent on the one who makes such a claim, to give reasons for making it. After that, it becomes the responsibility of those denying the claims, to give a rebuttal to these reasons.


what isn't clear is the accuracy of your argument....there is no "initial position" unless it is that of the agnostic who says "I don't know"...

Nope. The agnostic comes last in the series, not first. Agnosticism, as a worldview, presupposes both the thesis of theism, and the anti-thesis of theism. The Agnostic looks at the arguments of both and concludes, "I can't decide."


..I have what I believe, you have what you believe....it is not "logical" for you to hold your position because I have not "proven" mine...

It is quite logical, in the absence of any supporting argument for your worldview, for me to say that the disbelief in your imaginary friend is more logical that belief in it.


...your position is as incapable of proof as mine is because they are both faith choices....

Look, simply repeating this argument does not make it true. It is not a "faith choice" for me to not believe in things that I have no evidence of the existence for whatsoever. It is the very height of irrationality, to spend one's time denying the reality of the infinite number of possible invisible things that could exist.


ah, but it is the atheist who has the lazy tactic.....you feel no reason to even examine the logic of your beliefs, because I have not proven to you that mine are correct....here is your challenge......show me these "rules of reason" that compel you to atheism, without referring even once to "you haven't proven to me that you are right".........

Again, my atheist beliefs are predicated upon someone else coming forward with the claims of theism. Since you're clearly not willing to do any work in defense of your worldview, I'll give a quick summary: It is logically impossible for something to come from nothing; It is logically impossible for time to have been created, especially by an intelligent agent; If the agent of creation is truly infinite, there is ultimately no possible distinction between that agent and what he creates (any more than what you imagine in your head is distinct from you); It is impossible that there is any ultimate distinction between 'right' and 'wrong,' if a single agent is the sole arbiter of these terms; It is impossible that we can be morally responsible for our lives, if everthing that we do is pre-determined.

From the above, follow the fundamentals of the atheist worldview: The world is eternal and uncreated; the relation of difference is metaphysically real and not an illousion; the difference between ethical 'right' and 'wrong' is ultimately decided by a plurality of free actors contesting the meaning of these terms... the actors are in a feedback-relationship with these terms; the actors collectively interpret them, enshrining them in law which then stands above any given individual actor. The law is, ultimately, subject to revision, but only as this revision is a cooperative enterprise among moral actors. The definition of a tyrant is: any given moral actor who arrogates to himself the sole power to interpret law.

At its dark heart, the thesis of theism is a defense of tyranny. In the end, in my view, all theists in their heart believe in tyranny, believe that Might makes Right. That is why atheists are aggressive about their views. Theism is the greatest Lie ever Sold, a destructive meme that has to be resisted.

[PostmodernProphet]

No, you are not. You are claiming that what you take as true, is true for the whole world, whether others agree or not; that your god is real in fact, and just something you like to entertain in your own mind. The claims that you are making in making your faith-choice, are extraordinary claims: that an Invisible, and immaterial Man exists, (?) and indeed exists in all places and times simultaneously (??) has the sole prerogative of defining 'right' and 'wrong,' (??) caused the whole universe to come into existence from nothing, (???) wants to save us from punishment which he will administer, and will do this on the basis of the choices that he pre-determines us to make (????). And this only scratches the surface of the catalogue of your fantastic beliefs, beliefs which you claim are as true for me as the law of gravity.

So please quit with that "it's only my faith choice" dodge and weave. Your choices are also claims to truth. You're making the claim, it's incumbent upon you to defend it.


???....as I have said, I am making a faith choice......I don't have to convince you of anything, you need to make your own faith choice.....as a Christian of the evangelical persuasion I feel compelled to provide you with the "good news" but it is not incumbent upon me to make you believe it....

you're the one who claims your choice is something different than faith.....perhaps then, you are the one who has the burden of proving it is something else.....I'm perfectly content with letting you hold your position as a faith choice.....



But I'm betting you've got bruised up enough in your past exchanges with atheists, than to try it.
quite frankly I've never lost an argument......I've had them go on for months (some atheists never know when to quit) but I've never lost one.....



We do not extend the presumption of existence, to things unseen.

yet, you seem fully prepared to allow a presumption of non existence....why is that?




Look, simply repeating this argument does not make it true. It is not a "faith choice" for me to not believe in things that I have no evidence of the existence for whatsoever. It is the very height of irrationality, to spend one's time denying the reality of the infinite number of possible invisible things that could exist.

but that isn't what's involved now, is it.....an agnostic is one who doesn't believe....the atheist is the one who denies the existence.....and I will agree that it is the height of irrationality to deny the reality of things that could exist....that's why I consider atheists irrational......



I'll give a quick summary: It is logically impossible for something to come from nothing; It is logically impossible for time to have been created, especially by an intelligent agent; If the agent of creation is truly infinite, there is ultimately no possible distinction between that agent and what he creates (any more than what you imagine in your head is distinct from you); It is impossible that there is any ultimate distinction between 'right' and 'wrong,' if a single agent is the sole arbiter of these terms; It is impossible that we can be morally responsible for our lives, if everthing that we do is pre-determined.

I challenge you to prove that any or all of those statements are true....




From the above, follow the fundamentals of the atheist worldview: The world is eternal and uncreated;

science is already capable of proving that statement is false.....the beginning of the universe has been identified and named as the Big Bang....



the relation of difference is metaphysically real and not an illousion;
I must confess, I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by that sentence, please explain....


the difference between ethical 'right' and 'wrong' is ultimately decided by a plurality of free actors contesting the meaning of these terms... the actors are in a feedback-relationship with these terms; the actors collectively interpret them, enshrining them in law which then stands above any given individual actor. The law is, ultimately, subject to revision, but only as this revision is a cooperative enterprise among moral actors. The definition of a tyrant is: any given moral actor who arrogates to himself the sole power to interpret law.

that presumes that what is decided by said plurality is in fact the only standard.....are you prepared to concede that what might be decided by a plurality of pirates in Somalia falls short of some other standard?....



At its dark heart, the thesis of theism is a defense of tyranny. In the end, in my view, all theists in their heart believe in tyranny, believe that Might makes Right. That is why atheists are aggressive about their views. Theism is the greatest Lie ever Sold, a destructive meme that has to be resisted.
ah, but that conclusion does not stand up to what is considered true by a plurality of free actors....thus, by your definition, it is ethically wrong....