Atheism: The True Path?

[fr0d0]

@ Evie.. Thanks for the welcome

I already said, my justification for calling it mindless is that it's what the majority think, even though of course saying that the majority don't think would possibly be more true. Yes I appreciate that a strongly held atheistic position would require retention of certain arguments and so isn't of course mindless at all.

Isn't atheism a philosophical position rather than a philosophy?

No; it's a lack of belief ,period.

The philosophical position is the lack of belief. Doesn't atheism, in serving no other point but to counter belief, therefore make a philosophical stance?

I thought you had me on ignore anyway?


@ lrh9.. Your contention is that the brain dying disproves the existence of a soul!!! What illogical crap!


@ Kyu.. Thankyou too. Good holiday yeah thanks

Your argument holds true from a scientific perspective, which is all you will consider, dismissing theology with science as you do. A person who cannot dismiss theology rationally, such as myself, because I understand science to be limited to describing the physical universe, has to consider God's existence.

I don't think it's scientific philosophy resulting in atheism. I think it's scientific method resulting in the philosophical stance of atheism. But perhaps that's just splitting hairs.

I can easily consider atheism a path. You guys seem to be saying as much using other words. I think it's more what you would consider vile connotations associated with calling it a path that you have a problem with. I can see why you don't like it in other words.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Your argument holds true from a scientific perspective, which is all you will consider, dismissing theology with science as you do. A person who cannot dismiss theology rationally, such as myself, because I understand science to be limited to describing the physical universe, has to consider God's existence.

OK .. explain how someone coming from an entirely different POV (such as Buddhism) can be considered as having the same philosophy as me.

I don't think it's scientific philosophy resulting in atheism. I think it's scientific method resulting in the philosophical stance of atheism. But perhaps that's just splitting hairs.

I think it's more than simply splitting hairs because it's wrong ... you see what you and Dagda don't seem to get is that if the scientific evidence indicated the existence of a god I would become a theist (granted I would not, probably could not, worship but I would believe).

I can easily consider atheism a path. You guys seem to be saying as much using other words. I think it's more what you would consider vile connotations associated with calling it a path that you have a problem with. I can see why you don't like it in other words.

I don't agree because, as I've said before, both atheism and theism are labels ... specific philosophies lead people to atheism (science, Buddhism even communism maybe) and specific philosophies lead people to theism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). I'm genuinely surprised that you cannot see the difference ... I mean it's not even like I insist theism is (of itself) a philosophy.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Your argument holds true from a scientific perspective, which is all you will consider, dismissing theology with science as you do. A person who cannot dismiss theology rationally, such as myself, because I understand science to be limited to describing the physical universe, has to consider God's existence.

OK .. explain how someone coming from an entirely different POV (such as Buddhism) can be considered as having the same philosophy as me.

Firstly, I don't understand Buddhism (much beyond the very basic). Secondly, did I say that or did you? (just asking). The Buddhists philosophical stance is one of no God, but a spiritual reality.. right? The difference isn't as clear as between theist and atheist - these are bare assertions, whereas Buddhism is a specific set of assertions much like Christianity is. Science isn't a specific set of philosophical assertions. As Richard Dawkins says, to science, theology isn't a subject.

I don't think it's scientific philosophy resulting in atheism. I think it's scientific method resulting in the philosophical stance of atheism. But perhaps that's just splitting hairs.

I think it's more than simply splitting hairs because it's wrong ... you see what you and Dagda don't seem to get is that if the scientific evidence indicated the existence of a god I would become a theist (granted I would not, probably could not, worship but I would believe).

Scientific proof of God is theoretically impossible, so that's horribly wrong. As above, I need to be convinced that Science is a philosophical stance. At present I just don't see it (see reasons above).

I can easily consider atheism a path. You guys seem to be saying as much using other words. I think it's more what you would consider vile connotations associated with calling it a path that you have a problem with. I can see why you don't like it in other words.

I don't agree because, as I've said before, both atheism and theism are labels ... specific philosophies lead people to atheism (science, Buddhism even communism maybe) and specific philosophies lead people to theism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). I'm genuinely surprised that you cannot see the difference ... I mean it's not even like I insist theism is (of itself) a philosophy.

Kyu

Well that seems very weird to me that you can understand/ claim that science is a philosophy along with Buddhism and Christianity.

I just did a quick google and the answers.com dictionary definition of 'philosophy' states:

"Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

What do you think?

[Kyuuketsuki]

OK .. explain how someone coming from an entirely different POV (such as Buddhism) can be considered as having the same philosophy as me.

Firstly, I don't understand Buddhism (much beyond the very basic). Secondly, did I say that or did you? (just asking). The Buddhists philosophical stance is one of no God, but a spiritual reality.. right? The difference isn't as clear as between theist and atheist - these are bare assertions, whereas Buddhism is a specific set of assertions much like Christianity is. Science isn't a specific set of philosophical assertions. As Richard Dawkins says, to science, theology isn't a subject.

First does not knowing something actually mean anything? I don't think you are ignorant but the remark seems to demonstrate ignorance. I suppose it depends on whether you accept atheism simply means you don't believe in god or not but if you accept that then Buddhism (which I am told holds there is no god, I don't know much about it either) is atheistic. Like the Greeks, I would (and have as you know from my opening debate post) argue that inductive reasoning (which is what science is) is the only truly valid form of philosophy in a real, knowledge acquisition sense. In one sense I suppose theology isn't a subject in the same way that geography isn't really a subject but I would say a "subject" is an area of study defined by people and in that sense it is.

I think it's more than simply splitting hairs because it's wrong ... you see what you and Dagda don't seem to get is that if the scientific evidence indicated the existence of a god I would become a theist (granted I would not, probably could not, worship but I would believe).

Scientific proof of God is theoretically impossible, so that's horribly wrong. As above, I need to be convinced that Science is a philosophical stance. At present I just don't see it (see reasons above).

For reasons already given (primarily because in order to affect the world something, an effect, must happen and any effect will have measurable parameters) I do not accept that reasoning as valid. It's worth noting that a scientific theory represents the highest possible explanation available to science and in no way does referring to your ideas as "theoretical" grant them anything even approaching that level of explanation.

I don't agree because, as I've said before, both atheism and theism are labels ... specific philosophies lead people to atheism (science, Buddhism even communism maybe) and specific philosophies lead people to theism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). I'm genuinely surprised that you cannot see the difference ... I mean it's not even like I insist theism is (of itself) a philosophy.

Well that seems very weird to me that you can understand/ claim that science is a philosophy along with Buddhism and Christianity.

I just did a quick google and the answers.com dictionary definition of 'philosophy' states:

"Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

What do you think?

Here's one I prepared earlier:

Philosophy seems to have (as is usual within the English language) a correct meaning and a number of common usage meanings but, thanks to Asimov (who was one of those dratted Doctor's of Philosophy as you probably know) and his "New Guide to Science", it appears that it derives from the ancient Greeks. Asimov devotes some space to philosophy where he referred to the Greek investigations of the universe and that they called (and I quote) 'their new manner of studying the universe [i]philosophia ("philosophy"), meaning "love of knowledge" or, in free translation, "the desire to know"'(page 8). I would argue that it is because current day philosophers seem to provide little or no direct value to the real world that much of the philosophy bandied about today is little more than academic psychobabble. The true philosophers are scientists. [/i]

That's a bit harsh (strict) in this context so I guess I would say a philosophy (in a more general sense) is something that guides your life, affects the way you think and evaluate things ... for me that is science and it is the science that has led me to atheism.

Kyu

[chatpilot]

Regarding the actual title of this post I honestly dont think that there is an actual true path in life.In general life is a road we all must travel and in our own way find a path that feels right to ourselves.Depending on our goals in life and our future aims and aspirations we seek out a path that in our own view will help us get where we want to go with less discomfort and agony.

As a die hard atheist and former evangelist I think that religion in all its forms is nothing more than a deluded path.It may not be the right one but it feels right for those that choose to stay on it.

[josef rosenkranz]

This is a little game. Not to be taken too seriously (or too lightly). Convince me atheism is the right path to go down. Just to keep things fresh don't use the classic 'there is no evidence hence such and such does not exist'. Perhaps a little unfair, but if you don't like it, don't post. Anyway, I figure that one of you must have another good argument hidden under your hat.

You are right of not accepting the slogan "there is no....hence...does no exist".
This is my dispute with the Dawkinists who see atheism only from the point of view that there is ALMOST a proven evidence that God does not exist.
I don't deny by any means the scientific veracity of Dawkins' arguments as expressed in his famous book TGD but I argue that there are in the same time undeniable proves that God DOES NOT exist.
This proof is based on the simple question of "who created God "?
The question is opposite to that of "who created the universe with the answer by believers that it was God".
Both questions are of equal weight.
Now,we atheists have a clear and provable answer to it:God is a creation of man.
Against the believe that man was created in the image of God we say without the slightest doubt that God was created by man in his own image.
To be more specific God was created in ancient times in the image initially of objects or animals who
where believed to have supranatural powers and as human society developed in the image of leaders of the society.
The creation of God by man can be explained by a lot of reasons all of them with the purpose of benefit
for all members or for a part of the society.
The frame of this forum does not facilitate to describe all those reasons but along history, till our era
of rationality, religion played an important role in the life of societies as well in the life of individuals.

I affirm that more than the historic creation of God by man, the power of religions consists in the fact that every individual believer re-creates God in his mind ,the very moment he things about him,in the image impregnated in his mind, beginning with the time of his childhood.
It is an individual experience actually lived by almost all of us.
That image differs with every religion but to day most of religions believe in some human figure,mostly an old man,living somewhere high in the sky.
The very believe in heavens of being high in the sky and not down in the earth ( with some exceptions of antic pagan religions) is another proof of creation of them by man.
So in conclusion: yes ,definitely yes, the prove of God being created by man disproves the existence
of a supranatural entity of no beginning or age named currently God.

[fr0d0]

Like the Greeks, I would (and have as you know from my opening debate post) argue that inductive reasoning (which is what science is) is the only truly valid form of philosophy in a real, knowledge acquisition sense. In one sense I suppose theology isn't a subject in the same way that geography isn't really a subject but I would say a "subject" is an area of study defined by people and in that sense it is.

Scientific reasoning is absolutely one astounding tool deserving of serious respect. I don't see though, how the method of reasoning defines the philosophy.

Scientific proof of God is theoretically impossible, so that's horribly wrong. As above, I need to be convinced that Science is a philosophical stance. At present I just don't see it (see reasons above).

For reasons already given (primarily because in order to affect the world something, an effect, must happen and any effect will have measurable parameters) I do not accept that reasoning as valid. It's worth noting that a scientific theory represents the highest possible explanation available to science and in no way does referring to your ideas as "theoretical" grant them anything even approaching that level of explanation.

You cant know for sure the cause, so the reasoning from science is the same for both atheism and theism, it being after the fact.

I totally agree with you about the validity of scientific theory.

Well that seems very weird to me that you can understand/ claim that science is a philosophy along with Buddhism and Christianity.

I just did a quick google and the answers.com dictionary definition of 'philosophy' states:

"Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

What do you think?

Here's one I prepared earlier:

Philosophy seems to have (as is usual within the English language) a correct meaning and a number of common usage meanings but, thanks to Asimov (who was one of those dratted Doctor's of Philosophy as you probably know) and his "New Guide to Science", it appears that it derives from the ancient Greeks. Asimov devotes some space to philosophy where he referred to the Greek investigations of the universe and that they called (and I quote) 'their new manner of studying the universe philosophia ("philosophy"), meaning "love of knowledge" or, in free translation, "the desire to know"'(page 8). I would argue that it is because current day philosophers seem to provide little or no direct value to the real world that much of the philosophy bandied about today is little more than academic psychobabble. The true philosophers are scientists.

That's a bit harsh (strict) in this context so I guess I would say a philosophy (in a more general sense) is something that guides your life, affects the way you think and evaluate things ... for me that is science and it is the science that has led me to atheism.

Kyu

I thought it was "love of wisdom".

This may be unfair, but I'll say it anyway. Please forgive the insensitivity.. To me it seems you're squirming to fit the answer to the question.

Science leads me to greater insight and understanding of the physical universe. It's limited to that. (there's an opening if I ever saw one!

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm only going to answer the last bit because I think that essentially bears on why I think the other bits.

I thought it was "love of wisdom".

Not according to Asimov and I haven't seen anyone else say otherwise.

This may be unfair, but I'll say it anyway. Please forgive the insensitivity.. To me it seems you're squirming to fit the answer to the question.

I'm not but if you wish to think I am knock yourself out.

Science leads me to greater insight and understanding of the physical universe. It's limited to that. (there's an opening if I ever saw one!

Now there you see is the crux of what I think is your extremely limited view on science ... I believe that not only does science answer many, many questions but it influences the way a person thinks, the way they analyze, evaluate and assess things. In short science & reason, once adopted as a rational outlook, mkes a person look at the world differently, evaluate it in a rational fashion, influences their entire outlook on life (or at least informs on it).

If you think that isn't true try reading a newspaper and you'll find that maybe 75% (perhaps even all) of the articles require some understanding, some comprehension of science ... a car loses control and results in a multi-car pileup (you can understand that because you have at least a basic grasp of physics, trajectories, velocities and the kinds of impacts that cause damage), a rugby player scores a 100yd try (again physics, velocities, trajectories ... I've no idea if there is such a thing as a 100yd try BTW), there's a swine flu epidemic in Mexico (you understand that because you have a basic grasp of biology and the way diseases are communicated from one person to another), there's a corrosive chemical spill on the interstate in America (you understand the dangers because you have a basic scientific understanding of how wind and atmosphere works, how chemicals react and corrode etc.). People naively claim that science doesn't affect culture but it touches on every aspect of our lives ... television, books, plays, films all rely these days on the technological advances of science ... we embrace science in every aspect of our daily lives, we live science, we breathe science, we ARE science are scence!

Science is what we are, what we do and if that isn't the very essence of a philosophy I don't know what it is.

Kyu

[dagda]

As you are the atheists, I stand corrected. With this latest revelation, I will change the direction of the thread. Show me why your life philosophy is the right path to be on. I suppose you will have to define you life philosophy first.

[Kyuuketsuki]

As you are the atheists, I stand corrected. With this latest revelation, I will change the direction of the thread. Show me why your life philosophy is the right path to be on. I suppose you will have to define you life philosophy first.

Much better

Can I just cite what I just wrote to Frodo above (post 28)?

Kyu