Andrew_theist

Hi Helen,

Hi Andrew

Regarding what you said above - you think so, huh? I thought they were a pretty good summary of what I've seen Christians say online and heard them say, 'in real life', about atheists.

It maybe indicative of some Christians, I wouldn’t invoke any of them.

I think many atheists spend a great deal of time, effort, considerable intelligence and imagination convincing and reassuring themselves this world is free for us to do as we please with no meddlesome God to interfere.

I suggest you read the thread in Secular Lifestye and Support forum: "How long is it since you've thought about religion?" If you don't mind gathering evidence for whether you're right or not, that is!

I responded to this thread with an opinion, I don’t have any official facts. So it goes without saying I could be wrong. I wouldn’t call a voluntary response to a thread evidence either.

I think the atheists who participate in boards like this are less sure of their convictions and do so to help shore up their beliefs.

That's quite something for someone who joined yesterday, to have figured that out already. Actually I've been here almost a year and that's not my experience here. Most people here are very sure of their atheism. They come here to discuss what angers them about religions, to find other people who understand their worldview so they can talk about it without being 'labelled' unfairly, to discuss the practical side of living with loved ones or friends or a community who strongly believe(s) in God. I think you've projected the reason why Christians get together onto atheists, actually, when you say that atheists get together here to shore up their beliefs, because they aren't convinced.

I do think like-minded folks get together for camaraderie and to reassure themselves of their beliefs. And I see a similarity between theists getting together and this board. Some of the responses in the thread you pasted indicated the same thing. I rejoined the board yesterday because my old ID and password were not working. I have been debating and discussing with atheists since the days of 1200-baud modems in an echo called Holysmoke. The sec web is much better and fairer than most boards. I also read the articles pro and con and sometimes use them in my own site.

I said what I said because if I decided there was no God I would have to construct extremely clever rationalizations in order to convince myself that something as complex as a universe and life should just happened to have happened. In fact during hard times of questioning my own beliefs I have contemplated the idea that God is just a myth. Then I look outside and see a universe and find it impossible to imagine that things like universes happen by themselves. That alone doesn’t make me a believer. It does leave me unable to be sure there is no creator or designer. Atheism in my opinion is not a factual knowledge system. It is a belief in a disbelief of God. Since beliefs are not certain it helps to have them reassured with like minded folks.

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Foxhole Atheist

Hello Andrew, it’s been a while. Glad to see you’ve dropped in.

“I think many atheists spend a great deal of time, effort, considerable intelligence and imagination convincing and reassuring themselves this world is free for us to do as we please with no meddlesome God to interfere. I think the atheists who participate in boards like this are less sure of their convictions and do so to help shore up their beliefs.”

Now, after our short conversations a while ago, I know that you know better than that. When I visited your site some time ago, I thought that there might be some room for understanding. I found you to be very open. However, others were not so accepting of another view. I don’t mean accepting to the point of changing one’s beliefs but accepting to the point of listening and trying to understand why others may have a differing view.

In any event Andrew, welcome to the Secular Web, my home away from home. Why don’t you stick around a while? I believe your input would be highly regarded and you may find some very interesting people here. Although the majority are non-theists, there are some theists here of varying “faiths” that do have something to say. I think you just may enjoy the “tempo”.

Andrew_theist

Hello Wyrdsmyth,

What, specifically, do they reveal about what I think of theists?

You wrote these potential answers because you thought this is what most theists think yes? If you had no idea why bother?

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But I challenge you to think about why you hold it. Do you hold this opinion because other people, theists whom you perhaps respect and admire (ministers, relatives, friends, etc.) have told you this is what atheists are about? Or is it something you have learned through observation and experience? Do you know any atheists who state the primary reason for their atheism is that they want to "do as they please with no meddlesome God to interfere"? Have you ever once heard an atheist state that?

I think it is a little humorous that you continue to suggest to me what my answer should be. Is your suggestion what atheists told you about theists? The church I attend and the people I chat with almost never talk about atheism. As I mentioned to Helen I have spent the last 8 years chatting, discussing and debating with atheists. I visit this site and many others. The answer God is not invoked in a vacuum. It is in response to a question. The question is why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? Many atheists have told me they have no answer for this question. This means they haven’t rejected the hypothesis of God because of some equally good naturalistic answer. This suggests to me that the answer God is abhorrent on personal grounds. My website challenging atheism has been open for nearly a year. I have invited atheists to give me their best reasons and arguments why they think there is no God. A few have had some challenging reasons. The majority has bought into sound bite atheistic thought bombs without the least amount of critical thinking. Here is the most popular one. There is no more evidence for God than there is for Santa. This is sheer nonsense. The answer Santa is to the question why are there presents under the tree on Christmas morning? The answer Santa can be easily falsified with a naturalistic explanation that is vastly superior, repeatable and demonstrable. If the two invocations are essentially the same why haven’t atheists produced some naturalist explanation that is as good or superior? Because there isn’t any and the analogy is false. So in my opinion many atheists prefer an unknown naturalistic explanation because they just as soon there be no meddling deity raining on their parade.

No I have not heard an atheist state this to me personally. I haven’t heard any theists state they believe in God because they want there to be one though I am confident for many that is exactly why they believe.

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Andrew_theist

Hi Foxhole,

I thought we were having good dialog and then you were gone. Maybe we can strike it up again. I will stay involved here as time permits. I have to visit my own site from time to time

Hobbs

Thank you for your response, Andrew, but I must admit that I'm not clear how this is substantially different from:

(A) There really aren't any atheists, since deep in our heart of hearts, everybody knows that God exists. But some people repress that knowledge, because they don't want it to be true.

If I misunderstood your response, and you feel it is substantially different from Wyrdsmyth's option A, please explain further.

Wyrdsmyth

This is what science is, fundamentally... It is trying to construct 'extremely clever rationalizations' (otherwise known as theories or conjectures) for how things work, instead of just sticking a god label on everything that we don't understand.

I admire that. At least you're willing to concede that you might be wrong.

What makes you think it is impossible? I guess this is the difference between me and most creationists... they see the entire universe as being evidence for a creator or designer... But much of it hinges on intuitions of what is simple or complex. Those are relative terms. Is a cloud complex, or simple? Chaotic or orderly? IDists look at a cloud and say, "Ooh, look how complex, obviously an intelligent designer deity must be behind that!" I just see a cloud.

I should hope not, considering ID is an assertion and not an argument. If you don't accept the initial premiss that the universe is analogous to a Swiss watch, then you can't go anywhere with it.

If we don't have any evidence for or against unicorns, what should our default position be?

Atheism is not a "knowledge system" at all. It is merely a term that means the lack of belief in a god. Aleprechaunism is the lack of belief in leprechauns, not a knowledge system.

Keep it simple: atheism is "belief in God" with a "not" symbol in front of it.

When I come onto this board, I would rather argue (politely, of course) with theists than slap other atheists on the back and tell them how right they are. That's boring. I think a lot of people are here for debate and to explore other ideas, not to feel "reassured."

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Hobbs

The question "why is there something rather than nothing" has, and can have, no answer. Not even "God." Do you believe that God is something? If so, then, being something, the question applies to God also: why is there a God rather than there not being one?

The only way to answer the question is to appeal to something, or nothing. If you appeal to something, then the question can be asked of that something. If you don't appeal to something, you are appealing to nothing, and there is no answer.

Regardless of whether or not there is a "better" hypothesis, "God" doesn't work as an answer to this question. There doesn't have to be another answer available to recognize that a particular posited answer is inadequate.

It seems to me that all your answer says is that, well, stuff exists. Fine, I agree with that. I just don't see any evidence that a god is among the stuff that exists. Or any reason to think that there is, or even could possibly be, an answer to the question of why anything (which would include God) exists at all.

HelenM

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Andrew_theist

Hello Wyrdsmyth,

This is what science is, fundamentally... It is trying to construct 'extremely clever rationalizations' (otherwise known as theories or conjectures) for how things work, instead of just sticking a god label on everything that we don't understand.

God of the gaps was bad apologetics. However the relatively recent discovery that the universe began to exist about 15-20 billion years ago and the continuing discovery of an every narrowing band of constants and parameters required for sentient life to develop has breathed new life into natural theology. I don’t think our disagreement is a matter of evidence I think it is a matter of philosophy. Science itself is committed to naturalism and as a result even if there is a supernatural explanation there is no confidence the science will discover it. You seem committed enough to naturalism that if currently there is no viable natural explanation for the universe coming into existence you have faith that a naturalistic explanation is forth coming. This is exactly what I mean by a clever rationalization. You seem blinded that science is committed to naturalism and naturalism is an unscientific philosophy just as theism is. Yet you possibly characterize yourself as an objective free thinker. I on the other hand I fully admit to having a worldview that influences my thinking. I believe the supernatural is possible and that immaterial causes can exist. I also believe in this material world. So technically I am more of a freethinker since I am not willing to exclude possibilities out of hand.

What makes you think it is impossible? I guess this is the difference between me and most creationists... they see the entire universe as being evidence for a creator or designer... But much of it hinges on intuitions of what is simple or complex. Those are relative terms. Is a cloud complex, or simple? Chaotic or orderly? IDists look at a cloud and say, "Ooh, look how complex, obviously an intelligent designer deity must be behind that!" I just see a cloud.

I stand corrected the word impossible was strong. Highly improbable would be apt. There is a significant difference between a cloud and a universe that appears to have come into existence.

Atheism is not a "knowledge system" at all. It is merely a term that means the lack of belief in a god. Aleprechaunism is the lack of belief in leprechauns, not a knowledge system.

Here we will have to agree to disagree. The definition of atheism is as follows,

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny; To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

The so-called weak atheism is a myth. If you merely have a lack of belief in God than you are a skeptic or a doubting Thomas but you are not by definition an atheist. Atheism is not lack of belief but disbelief. Theists occasionally have lack of belief but that hardly qualifies them as an atheist.

Anyway you asked my opinion of why I think atheists are atheists. I should qualify and say my opinion is why some atheists are atheists but certainly not all. Maybe a minority. So let me turn the tables. Why do you think atheists are atheists and why do you think theists are theists?

<a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

HRG

That's a particular use of the word "atheism", but not the one and unique definition of it.

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny; To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

The so-called weak atheism is a myth.

[/quote]
Only for those who believe that the editors of a particular dictionary have been given absolute authority over a language. Dictionaries describe usages; they do not prescribe definitions.

And of course I have seen dictionaries who are well aware of the distinction between weak and strong atheism.

Regards,
HRG.