The Unreasonableness of Atheism

[_beastie]

Mikwut - you must be the same mikwut from ZLMB, there can't be TWO in this world. I used to post there as seven of niine, and we had several enjoyable conversations (at least from my perspective).

If it's the same mikwut, and I'm pretty sure it is, he is a valuable addition to our board.

I'm going to reread your post, as well, but my primary comment is that I definitely agree it's all unprovable. That's why, when I'm being technical, I refer to myself as an agnostic atheist. I think it's fundamentally impossible to prove anything about the existence of God, much less the actual being of God. But I, personally, lack any belief in a god, hence the atheist part.

Sometimes I wonder how the tendencies of our brains impacts our tendency to believe or not believe. Perhaps this is a discredited remnant of my old education, but I was taught that there are "right" and "left" brain dominances. Could left brain dominated people be more comfortable with atheism? When I was young, partly due to my love affair with drama, I always thought I was right brain dominant, but as time has gone on, the truth is the exact opposite.

[_mikwut]

Ahhhhh, seven of nine, how wonderful. I did indeed enjoy our conversations and I respect your thought a great deal, challenging you are! I am the same mikwut, I recognized a few from the ZLMB board, GAD and E for example.

I am certainly no expert on the brain symmetry question you posed by my latest reading Neuroscience and the Person left me with a clear academic perspective that it is simplistic and bygone thinking or even nonsense.

It is good to hear from you again "beastie"!

kindest regards, mikwut

[_dartagnan]

Jesus.

This topic took off without me... I don't know when I will get back to it all but I wanted to comment on this from the last thread.

BCspace and Dart shouldn't argue in categories of unreasonableness.

Dig back in the dicsussion and you'll find me saying the opposite. I never said atheism was unreasonable, but don't let that prevent some atheists here from claiming victimhood anyway. I just find most atheists I come in contact with, boring. What is wrong with saying that? That doesn't mean they are dumb or wrong, it just means I find the substance that they bring to the discussions, boring. They generally do not have a penchant for philosophy because they see it as a backdoor to theism. For the most part, science is their religion. If you don't believe me, I can dig up some interesting quotations if you'd like. Or you can just take a gander at the thread moniker linked us to in the beginning.

Not all atheists are anti-philosophy, obviously. But in my experience on these forums it seems that the key atheist speakers are primarily experts in rhetoric, usually against ID. Or they are staunch proponents of materialism, evolution, or whatever it is that they think can somehow cast a shadow on the credibility of theism.

Can they disprove theism? Of course not. Can atheism be disproved? Of course not.

Has anyone said atheism can be disproved? Not to my knowledge. All I did was explain why I believe there is evidence to support the existence of a divine intelligence. Sethbag requested this a month or so ago but I never got around to it until a few days ago. Atheists here felt the need to attack this. But why? For them it isn't tolerable that someone believe something they do not, without them at least trying to make a case that it is based on ignorance. It is as if they are saying, "OK, go believe your primitive fairy tales, but I'm an atheist because I'm smarter than you."

Why?

Because, despite beastie's ludicrous claims to the contrary, it is they who are intolerant of theism.

I have never tried to prove God exists to an atheist. But atheists on this forum have a habit of ridiculing theists simply because they believe in God. You'll see all sorts of depreciatory quips about spaghetti monster's, cartoons ridiculing Jesus, etc. All of this is fine and dandy.

But if a theist says atheists are reasonable, while generally boring. Well, that's bigotry in their book!

When I get back I will start another thread in celestial on the anthropic principle as it pertains to the existence of deity.

[_beastie]

But if a theist says atheists are reasonable, while generally boring. Well, that's bigotry in their book!

No, that's not what bigotry is. Bigotry is saying that atheists are less moral than theists (because they don't have the "requisite inhibitor"), and that they are also boring, uninteresting, and sometimes anti-social, only interested in attacking religion, more inclined to violence when given power, etc etc...it's the blanket negative generalizations about an entire group of people that is bigotry.

[_mikwut]

Hello Dart,

There is nothing wrong with saying your experience leads you to an opinion that most atheists you have encountered are boring, I just offer you opinion back that my experience has been different. I think Bertrand Russell is boring, he left the exciting stuff to Whitehead, but Sarte is unbelievably interesting to me. I did mention that I wasn't sure if you were referring to these message boards and the individuals you encounter or in life in general and atheism generally. I find some agreement with you regarding rhetoric - but that might be a limitation to this type of forum rather than the category, or possibly as you point out individuals more competent in rhetoric. My philosophy professors were by majority non-theistic, an I would say non-rhetorical in their positions and that is where my perspective got forged.

I would be interested in your starting a anthropic principle thread, the topic fascinates me, I do find evidence in it for the divine. Correspondence analogies to many other areas of life I think are the best theistic arguments, ala say John Polkinghorne. Have you read Polanyi? - he doesn't speak about the anthropic principle per se - but his thought aligns quite interestingly along with the many manifold "coincidences" and a possible divine and meaning they could rationally warrant - he also doesn't betray what I call rational libertinism - they are not forced but definately evidential and worthy of intellectual respect.

I agree with your distaste for the substance of thoughtless ridicule for the belief in God from a non-belief position. If an atheist can't respect the long thoughtful and thought provoking history and philosophical substance found in theism - they are taking their position for granted and that is always fragile.

kind regards,
mikwut

[_Moniker]

Hello, mikwut! Thank you for participating in another thread of mine! Just 2 days ago I was looking over the thread in Celestial on ethics of belief and wondered who you were and why you never posted again. :)

I'm so glad there's a theist participating on the board that can share some thoughts that maybe I haven't considered or been introduced to. I look forward to any future posts you make.

[Guest]

Atheists here and on similar forums rarely are an expert in philosophy or rhetoric. The same is true of theists, of course. One can only wonder how Kevin imagines himself in this fanciful world he has created. Myself? My actual expertise comes in physiological psychology. And yes, "right brain" "left brain" findings were so grossly overexaggerted and misused in the popular culture that it is best to call them simply false. It's probably true there are biological predispositions to religiousity, but not in the manner speculated.

There is no evidence that atheists do not have a penchant for philosophy relative to others that I am aware of. Experience with the highly disproportionate number of atheists in professional philosophy and the importance of philosophy in atheist organizations suggests the opposite might even be the case. I don't think that would be surprising as secular philosophy fulfills roles in the intellectual curiosity of atheists that might otherwise be filled by a religion for a religious person. When it comes to these boards, my experience has been that atheists are disproportionately represented among those who appear to have a basic familiarity with contemporary issues in philosophy. With the exception of Mikwut posting on this thread, I'm blanking when trying to think of a single theist example on this board. At least I can blurt out Gad for the infidels. My sense is that Kevin is counting any theist who offers a vaguely philosophical assertion/argument as having a penchant for philosophy and is counting atheist avoidance and dismissals thereof as being "anti-philosophy." In short, if some naïve theist shows up and asserts a moral argument that even most professional theist philosophers of ethics would laugh their heads off at, and an atheist is flippant and uninterested in serious rebuttal, Kevin interprets that as pro-philosophy vs. anti-philosophy. If that's what's going on, I think it is self-evidently silly.

Kevin -

There's much more to philosophy than your dubious attempts at theistic justification. And if you were serious about interest in philosophy, you would display more awareness of the various reasons why anthropic arguments for God's existence are generally poorly looked upon. Instead, you come off as the classic person who is a little familiar with fine-tuning from religious apologetics and thinks, because of those apologetics, that the atheist/critical retort is to believe a heretofore unsupported multiverse hypothesis to "escape" the argument.

[_beastie]

And yes, "right brain" "left brain" findings were so grossly overexaggerted and misused in the popular culture that it is best to call them simply false. It's probably true there are biological predispositions to religiousity, but not in the manner speculated.

Yeah, I figured as much. It seemed a bit simplistic.

In short, if some naïve theist shows up and asserts a moral argument that even most professional theist philosophers of ethics would laugh their heads off at, and an atheist is flippant and uninterested in serious rebuttal, Kevin interprets that as pro-philosophy vs. anti-philosophy. If that's what's going on, I think it is self-evidently silly.

Here's my opinion, which I'm sure Dart will scoff at. I think he is suffering from confirmation bias. He is simply noticing what he wants to notice, because what he wants to notice affirms what he already believes.

It is true that theists often feel heavily criticized on these type of boards, and that feeling may be justified. When LDS begin to engage in the type of critical analysis that leads them out of Mormonism, they tend to apply the same skills to Christianity and theism in general. I think the result of this is a big ole' chip on someone's shoulder.

[_Moniker]

And yes, "right brain" "left brain" findings were so grossly overexaggerted and misused in the popular culture that it is best to call them simply false. It's probably true there are biological predispositions to religiousity, but not in the manner speculated.

Yeah, I figured as much. It seemed a bit simplistic.

I was on a left brain, right brain kick about a week or so ago and spent a few hours reading on the topic. I even posted a dancing girl in off-topic... about a day later (more reading) I discovered that it really wasn't a currently accepted theory. That's the beauty of the net -- I can get so excited to learn things and then figure out it's BS all in the same day!

[_dartagnan]

No, that's not what bigotry is. Bigotry is saying that atheists are less moral than theists (because they don't have the "requisite inhibitor")

I never said atheists were "less moral." Again, you're lying. The fact is religion serves a purpose because it teaches moral values. It doesn't guarantee moral behavior, but it is there to inhibit human nature from taking over. Atheists might be equally or more moral than some theists, but it cannot be said this is due to atheism since atheism teaches nothing, let alone morality.

and that they are also boring, uninteresting, and sometimes anti-social, only interested in attacking religion, more inclined to violence when given power, etc etc...

That isn't bigotry either, it is a simple recognition of the facts. Keep in mind that I brought up the latter point in the context of atheistic attacks on religious dictators. Somehow it didn't count as bigotry when people like JAK said religion is inherently dangerous to society. Where were you then? Oh yea, on the sidelines with your pom poms. Where was your protest of bigotry then beastie?

it's the blanket negative generalizations about an entire group of people that is bigotry.

You're intentionally twisting what has been said and it is pathetic. I specifically said I am speaking on my experiences in these forums, and have never made a "blanket statement" about all atheists. And who the hell could dispute this? Just look at the crowd I'm dealing with.

I would be interested in your starting a anthropic principle thread, the topic fascinates me, I do find evidence in it for the divine. Correspondence analogies to many other areas of life I think are the best theistic arguments, ala say John Polkinghorne. Have you read Polanyi? - he doesn't speak about the anthropic principle per se - but his thought aligns quite interestingly along with the many manifold "coincidences" and a possible divine and meaning they could rationally warrant - he also doesn't betray what I call rational libertinism - they are not forced but definitely evidential and worthy of intellectual respect.

Yes, I intend to delve into this further in due time. My plate is pretty full as it is.

I agree with your distaste for the substance of thoughtless ridicule for the belief in God from a non-belief position. If an atheist can't respect the long thoughtful and thought provoking history and philosophical substance found in theism - they are taking their position for granted and that is always fragile.

Yes, which is why atheism has become a religion for some groups. It has all the same characteristics.

There is no evidence that atheists do not have a penchant for philosophy relative to others that I am aware of. Experience with the highly disproportionate number of atheists in professional philosophy and the importance of philosophy in atheist organizations suggests the opposite might even be the case.

Sigh... how many times do I have to say it? I am referring to my experiences here on these forums. Who could possibly argue that I'm wrong? Just look around and show me an atheist poster who has started a philosophical discussion about knowledge outside the realm of science. All I see in the immediate vicinity are science fanatics. Beastie even made the laughable assertion that the "scientific method" is the answer to our problems.

My sense is that Kevin is counting any theist who offers a vaguely philosophical assertion/argument as having a penchant for philosophy and is counting atheist avoidance and dismissals thereof as being "anti-philosophy."

That isn't true. The fact is a theist by definition is someone who, at teh very least, contemplates our existence. That's within the immediate realm of philosophy. Any theist who engages in any sort of systematic theology, is already delving into philosophy, which probably explains why some of the greatest philosophers were Christian theologians. There is nothing about atheism that encourages an atheist to contemplate anything of the sort. This isn't to say that some of the greatest philosophers were not atheists. Philosophy literally means the "love of knowledge," and I have heard several atheists here in this forum tell me that knowledge isn't really knowledge unless it comes by the scientific method. They cannot afford to grant this to theists because it leaves the door cracked open for the Mormon testimony to slip in unrefuted.

I mean what atheist here is willing to grant that I have "knowledge" that God exists? You probably wouldn't call that "knowledge" at all, but someone approaching this from a philosophical standpoint shouldn't have a problem with granting me that. But you would, right?

In short, if some naïve theist shows up and asserts a moral argument that even most professional theist philosophers of ethics would laugh their heads off at, and an atheist is flippant and uninterested in serious rebuttal, Kevin interprets that as pro-philosophy vs. anti-philosophy. If that's what's going on, I think it is self-evidently silly.

That's not what's going on. Are you even trying to pay attention?

Kevin - There's much more to philosophy than your dubious attempts at theistic justification.

Theistic justification? What the hell?

EA, this is where you show your paranoid colors. Just put down your ID protest placards and stop trying to pound on straw men.

And if you were serious about interest in philosophy, you would display more awareness of the various reasons why anthropic arguments for God's existence are generally poorly looked upon. Instead, you come off as the classic person who is a little familiar with fine-tuning from religious apologetics and thinks, because of those apologetics, that the atheist/critical retort is to believe a heretofore unsupported multiverse hypothesis to "escape" the argument.

Again, I mentioned this several times and none of you had a response to it initially. I haven't read any "apologetics" on this subject. I have understood the anthropic principle well enough and I consider it evidence strong enough to convince me that a God exists (or did you totally miss that this was my point?). Now, as expected, it is your job as the intolerant atheist to take upon yourself the duty to prove how my interpretation is based on a lack of understanding because, well, you know some atheists who don't see it as evidence for God at all.

I will engage in this topic further in celestial and you can elaborate your polemic there. I'll go back earlier in this discussion and be sure to respond to everything the atheists here have said in response.