Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 06:20 PM

Hello Madmax,

Quote:

The problem David is your inability to grasp what atheism is. You've been told many times so why you continue down these rabbit holes I have no idea.

Once more for the Record David...

Atheism is not a "philosophy". It is not a worldview. There is no dogma or creed of atheism. It is a position on a subject and only a position on a subject.

Stop falling face first into these straw men fallacies and making atheism out to be more than it is or insinuating it should be more than it is.

Theism is also a position on a subject, but likewise it is no more than that - "There is a God" or "I believe a God or Gods exist". Thats it. If you want more, then you have to start talking about particular theistic views and philosphies, of which there are a great many.

The same holds with atheism. If you want more than "There are no Gods", or "I don't believe in any Gods", your going to have to start talking about those philosophies that are atheistic, such as Humanism, Naturalism, Pantheism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.. Then and only then can you get the answers you seek.

The same would apply for me if I wanted to learn about Theism. There is no creed, dogma, philosophy or worldview of "theism". There are many philosophies and worldviews however that are theistic and I can research those to find answers to the types of questions you asked.

David: You are an atheist and you consider yourself rational. Is that true?

Secondarily, you are an atheist and you consider yourself more rational than others. Is that true?

Thanks for your comments,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 06:25 PM

Hello John Page,

Quote:

David's request is irrational - possibly because of his brain chemistry as per my prior post from New Scientist.

David: I suspect that all people are irrational in some respect. I think irrationality is an inevitably byproduct of the incompleteness of our knowledge and the ineffectiveness of our intellect.

Quote:

For meaningful discussion to take place it is necessary to compare atheism to something else and, guess what, that's non-atheism. "Rational" is not an absolute. David - do you understand the value of control groups in rational, scientific, gathering of information?

David: Until we find some objective tests of rationality it seems pointless to begin comparing the rationality of different groups.

Quote:

Second, observers should beware their subjective bias. If not, as you can see from other threads, the opponents descend into claiming that rational athiesm is an oxymoron or that rational theism is an oxymoron. Clearly, both sides will wish to appear more rational given the topic thread.

David: Indeed, this is very true and a most important observation regarding the behavior of both sides.

Quote:

Anyway, I don't see how the starter of the thread can rationally object to a post regarding a scientific experiment that suggests the atheists are more rational than believers.

David: I will look over the experiment again.

I Love You All,

David Mathews

DRFseven · 07-25-2002, 06:31 PM

Quote:

David Matthews: I Love You All

Yeah, we can tell..

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 06:32 PM

Hello John Page,

Quote:

Are you saying that the findings of scientific experiments are irrational?

David: I don't believe that single scientific experiment is conclusive.

Quote:

Do you have any rational evidence that shows that disbelief in the existence of god is an irrational act?

David: I am speaking about the whole body of beliefs which an atheists accepts, not merely the rejection of belief in God. I believe it quite possible that atheists could have irrational beliefs.

Do you deny that possibility?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 06:35 PM

Hello Kachana,

Quote:

This is too vague to answer. Can you clarify, and explain the difference between me not believing the Christian God exists, and you not believing some hypothetical being I could come up with exists; note that in both instances, if we believed the positive version of proposition, our whole outlook on life would be drastically changed. It seems we are qualitatively the same.

David: If we are qualitatively the same then atheists cannot claim superior rationality to theists, nor can theists claim superior rationality to atheists.

I believe that this is the correct conclusion. The atheists and theists are equivalent from the standpoint of internal rationality, regardless of the low opinions we all may have of each other's rationality.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 06:40 PM

Hello Hans,

Quote:

Should you be interested in the view of someone who does not maintain any belief in the existence of gods I can offer the following:

The universe along with it's components exist. Its existence is evident from my observing it. I am undoubtedly aware of only a small fraction of the vast multitude of components that make up the universe as my ability to experience and observe is extremely limited on a universal scale. While one may argue that observation and experience are unreliable and therefore an irrational basis for one's beliefs, they are all I have. I, however, do recognize that observation and experience can be inaccurate and lead to false conclusions. I find it to be a wise decision to apply the highly reliable scientific method to those beliefs that have a greater impact on my decisions and actions.

David: I like this approach to the Universe. I suppose that Christians could say exactly the same thing without abandoning Theism. Do you agree?

Quote:

As to meaning and purpose I will presume you have used those words to convey the following:

What, if any, is the importance or value (meaning) and intended or desired effect (purpose) of both life and the individual self?

First I'll address purpose. Intent and desire are the product of will. If the origin of life has no will of its own then life has no purpose. Even if one found a will in the origin of life it would not guarantee that life has any intended or desired effect as there may have been no desired or intended effect. For instance, for all we know life could have been an accident or unintended side effect of some other process. Regardless, one would need to establish what the origin of life is in order to deduce whether a purpose exists or not. To my knowledge no such origin can be shown.

David: Agreed.

Quote:

There does, however, seem to exist at least one method of deducing a purpose to the individual self; One could query one's parents as to why they decided to reproduce. That is if one valued such a purpose. I personally place little value in such a purpose when developing my own values and virtues. On a universal scale the individual self seems to share the same apparent lack of purpose as life in general.

The meaning, or importance and value, of life and the individual self on a universal scale is seemingly non existent. That is, the universe would seem to exist with or without either.

David: Agreed. From a personal standpoint, what are the implications of this realization?

Quote:

Subjectively, the importance and value (meaning) of life is that it allows the existence of the individual self. The importance and value of the individual self is that it allows the existence of ME.

David: I suppose that this is as good a reason to exist as any other.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 06:44 PM

Hello Soul Invictus,

Quote:

I have watched this board for a while, thanks to a member at a discussion board on google. This is my first post, but to David you propose some interesting questions of proof for a worldview by atheists. I cannot claim as a devout atheist..yet. I have been raised in a Christian household, but over the years I've tried to put the pieces together for myself. I cannot see how atheism is qualified to explain one's philosophical beliefs on life and purpose. Atheism is a disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods...nothing more, nothing less. How atheists feel about life or purpose can differ, because these would require the person to explain what that person believes about that particular concept. Put simply, atheists can differ on opinion about life,love, purpose because these topics along with many others are not predicated on a belief in God.

Welcome to the board.

I believe that you are correct in saying that atheism can differ on many different things including life, love and purpose.

Do atheists differ concerning what constitutes rationality?

Best Regards,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 06:49 PM

Hello AtlanticCitySlave,

Quote:

As already pointed out, it is rather nonsensical to ask for an atheistic worldview. What would be more proper is to ask atheists, assuming they have one, what their worldview is. There are atheists that don't have any overall worldview. As an atheist, my worldview, if you will, is a form of naturalism. I am not sure what camp I fall into exactly at this point, although a physicalist one is currently my cup of tea. This is a reasonable view because, so far, naturalism and physicalism (especially in the philosophy of mind) have take the cake, and I feel these views are the most rational to take.

David: You feel that these views are the most rational? Your judgment of these views is purely subjective. Do you have any empirical objective tests to determine the rationality of these views?

Quote:

In addition, you (David) continually ignore answers to your questions, either responding to something else or just starting a new thread. People have been telling you since you started posting on these boards that atheism is not a worldview, yet you still act like it is. Why do you not read and remember what the people on this board write to you? It's only making you look idiotic or intellectually dishonest when you repeatedly ignore what other people say. At least to me, it's really getting annoying. If you're going to ask questions, have the proper courtesy to actually read what is written to you and remember the responses.

David: Even if atheism is not a worldview atheists still must have a worldview. Do you agree?

Best Regards,

David Mathews

Trekkie With a Phaser · 07-25-2002, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
<strong>David: I am speaking about the whole body of beliefs which an atheists accepts, not merely the rejection of belief in God. I believe it quite possible that atheists could have irrational beliefs.

Do you deny that possibility?

Sincerely,

David Mathews</strong>

David, it's quite possible for an atheist to have irrational beliefs. For instance, if there is an atheist out there who doesn't believe in any gods but, for whatever reason, believes that ghosts and goblins exist, that atheist's beliefs are irrational. If, however, an atheist's beliefs are grounded firmly in reality and not on faith, they are rational.

In regard to your first post in this thread, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has a philosophy that begins "with the proposition that God does not exist." That might be the stance of an angry theist (specifically one who believes in one of the monotheistic gods) who wishes to deny the existence of a being which the theist actually believes in. An atheist either lacks a belief in or feels that there is sufficient evidence to deny the existence of a certain god or gods. If an individual doesn't believe in something, they will not create a philosophy with the central theme that it doesn't exist. It would be similar to me asking you if your belief in the Judeo/Christian god means that the central premise of your philosophy is that the Greek gods don't exist.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Trekkie With a Phaser ]</p>

David Mathews · 07-25-2002, 06:53 PM

Hello sir drinks-a-lot,

Quote:

I am not sure what you are looking for here. First of all, most atheists will not state that God does not exist. Instead they just do not make the statement that God does exist.

David: True.

Quote:

As far as my worldview, it is probably not complete in the sense of explaining everything in the universe. Alot of theists like to proclaim that their worldviews are complete and consistent, which often leaves me asking 'Who cares?' Complete and consistent worldviews are trivial. I can come up with hundreds!

David: I don't imagine that anyone has a complete and consistent worldview, nor do I believe that a "complete and consistent" worldview is necessarily correct.

Quote:

On the other hand if you can show that a specific worldview held by atheists is inconsistent, then you will be acomplishing something.

David: I suppose that individual atheists can and do have inconsistencies in their worldview. What could possibly prevent them from having such errors and paradoxes in their world view?

You do acknowledge the potential for inconsistencies in worldviews held by atheists, don't you?

Best Regards,

David Mathews

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.