Atheism and Purpose

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Adrian -

To mirror ssmutters' sentiments, I'd be interested in your take on Dawkins and Maher you mentioned earlier as a quick off-topic point on this thread or perhaps another thread.

[Tiberius]

Adrian, I became a full fledged atheist after reading The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation. Now, it's interesting to hear that you consider Richard Dawkins may not be so good for atheism after all. I am interested in knowing your reasons for thinking Dawkins is not good for atheism. I am also thinking of buying some atheism books from this site, so whom would you suggest?

Sam Harris is a good person, and in my opinion a good influence for the atheist community. He has studied philosophy and so knows what he is talking about when it comes to the whole "god" issue.

Dawkins on the other hand, did not. He studied biology and when he talks about that, he is immense. He can describe evolutionary processes in very simple ways, and is a great public intellectual. However, "The God Delusion" was a piss poor attempt at a philosophical work; all he did was rehash old arguments, and when he tried to come up with his own ideas, or refute some religious ones, he often failed miserably.

Two examples spring to mind; the one which I am most critical of is his scale of belief, which for some explicable reason puts agnosticism in the dead centre. This is a clear indicator in my opinion that Dawkins doesn't know what agnosticism is, which is odd considering it was developed by the close friend of Darwin, Thomas Huxley.

The second example I can think of was his defense of the argument "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?", which attempts to disprove omnipotence. The argument, however, is a loaded question fallacy; something a good philosopher would have spotted instantly.

As for Maher, I'm still not sure where he actually stands. He has often says in interviews "I'm not an atheist" because for some reason he thinks atheists are people who say "there is no god" rather than people who just lack a belief in a god.

He is a great person if you want to be anti-religious; but he is less of a skeptic and more of an uneducated fool when it comes to things like vaccines and other medical related things.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Sleeping demon

Good post.

I only take issue with one assertion you make [in principle]

but that response doesn't tend to do well with people who are by nature depressed anyway.

I'm not convinced that is a sound assertion. A unipolar depressive for over 35 years, (currently stable) atheism actually helps me. It has meant I take responsibility for my actions and my life, without looking at some transcendent power to help me or to blame for life's vicissitudes. I find atheism empowering.

[ABierman1986]

Whenever I'm asked about the purpose of life, or how atheists can be moral people I always think of Einstein when he said;

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. ... "

There is a purpose to life, as has been stated previously, to procreate and continue our lineage. There are additional theories for ultimate purposes of the universe and these scientifically advanced and researched purposes are endlessly fascinating. I have personally found that acknowledging my purpose in the scientific/biological/cosmological sense has been something that allows me to constantly explore and understand better. A belief in a supernatural being would simply cloud my mind from being able to find the "purpose" you talk about.

When you say that religious people live for a purpose and a higher reason, well from an atheist point of view you've missed the point and live shadowed by a belief that doesn't allow reason or logic. It isn't any surprise that some of this discussion has been heated.

[Minimalist]

Dawkins on the other hand, did not. He studied biology and when he talks about that, he is immense.

Ah, I understand Adrian. I'll take biology (or any real science) over "philosophy" any day but to each his own.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

well from an atheist point of view you've missed the point and live shadowed by a belief that doesn't allow reason or logic.

Oh dear,ANOTHER apologist who hasn't grasped the meaning of the word 'atheist'.

There is no such thing as an atheist point of view,except on one topic: BY DEFINITION an atheist is merely a person who does not believe in gods. NOTHING ELSE is implied or may be inferred. ATHEISM IS NOT: a belief system,a philosophy, an ideology,a moral code or a club.

I assert only "I do not believe due to lack of evidence" I reject the notion that God may be be argued into or out of existence. His existence may only be proved or falsified. IE logic does not guarantee truth. That means I use logic and reason supported by evidence,unlike theology,which uses sophistry unsupported by evidence..

You believe in God? How nice for you. You want me to give credence/respect to your beliefs? No problem, I'm asolutely willing to that, the second you show me some evidence to support your claim.If you're unable to do that, please stop wasting my time and go away.

So far,not one person in recorded history has provided any evidence for the exisetence of gods,the,soul,the supernatural,the paranormal, or fairies at the bottom of their garden, so I'm not holding my breath.

[ABierman1986]

well from an atheist point of view you've missed the point and live shadowed by a belief that doesn't allow reason or logic.

Oh dear,ANOTHER apologist who hasn't grasped the meaning of the word 'atheist'.

There is no such thing as an atheist point of view,except on one topic: BY DEFINITION an atheist is merely a person who does not believe in gods. NOTHING ELSE is implied or may be inferred. ATHEISM IS NOT: a belief system,a philosophy, an ideology,a moral code or a club.

I assert only "I do not believe due to lack of evidence" I reject the notion that God may be be argued into or out of existence. His existence may only be proved or falsified. IE logic does not guarantee truth. That means I use logic and reason supported by evidence,unlike theology,which uses sophistry unsupported by evidence..

The word Atheism is defined that way, and I am in complete agreement I should not have spoken in that wide of a generality. Your point is well taken, however I do think that wider interpretation of atheism is permitted in the larger context of religious debate, of course agreement is never guaranteed.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

however I do think that wider interpretation of atheism is permitted in the larger context of religious debate, of course agreement is never guaranteed.

No it is not permitted. [by me] The the term is simple and unequivocal. You don't get to redefine it to suit your purpose. Nor am I debating you.

I have no interest in trying to argue with you. I really don't care about your personal superstitions, and have even less interest in trying to change your mind.



My position is also simple and clear. To be blunt;put up or shut up.

[Edward the Theist]

So far,not one person in recorded history has provided any evidence for the exisetence of gods,the,soul,the supernatural,the paranormal, or fairies at the bottom of their garden, so I'm not holding my breath.

Well, you can point at the sky and say it's blue, and I can say, "prove it," and that's where the conversation ends. It's all very close-minded, just like religion. What's interesting is that you say you don't believe in God without ever bothering to define what God is.

I can say I don't believe in Santa Claus, but when I do, at least I have the sack to define what it is I don't believe in. I don't believe in a supernatural fat man with a white beard and flying raindeer who brings presents to children on Christmas. I do believe in the existence of an historical figure named Saint Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra in the third century.

So, you can say you're an atheist meaning you don't believe God exists, but until you supply a definition of God other than (whatever anyone calls God) you sound like a religious fundamentalist. In fact, you become a religious fundamentalist.

And this brings me to another thing that pisses me off about close-minded atheists: you act like it's enlightenment to believe in only what scientists tell you is real. Which really means you let others do your thinking for you, and then you follow them. Even worse, you refuse to think beyond any dimensions of the box they construct for you. How is thay intellectual? How is that smart or enlightened? I'd call it mentally handicapped. No?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Well, you can point at the sky and say it's blue, and I can say, "prove it," and that's where the conversation ends. It's all very close-minded, just like religion. What's interesting is that you say you don't believe in God without ever bothering to define what God is.

You keep stating how closed-minded we atheists are when it's a completely absurd notion, particularly coming from someone who refuses to concede to any opinion other than his own.
It's as perplexing as it is agitating. I can prove the sky is blue by merely referring to the color blue and its similarity to the similarly-colored sky. There is also a lot of real science that goes into things like light refraction which explains why the sky's color is blue instead of another color, like Venus' orange or Mars' pink-red color that involve a great deal of basic-level chemistry and physics. Thus, no, the conversation only ends with someone who is unaware of the acutal science behind the effect, but that person's inability to mention those facts is irrelevant to the science behind the effect or the truth of it all.

I can say I don't believe in Santa Claus, but when I do, at least I have the sack to define what it is I don't believe in. I don't believe in a supernatural fat man with a white beard and flying raindeer who brings presents to children on Christmas. I do believe in the existence of an historical figure named Saint Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra in the third century.

It doesn't take a sack to to believe in one thing over another, but it does take a sack to say that because you believe in one fairy tale over another, that's what makes that fairy tale true.

So, you can say you're an atheist meaning you don't believe God exists, but until you supply a definition of God other than (whatever anyone calls God) you sound like a religious fundamentalist. In fact, you become a religious fundamentalist.

I dont' know why it is so difficult to understand, but atheists do not believe in god. Period. Not your god, not the christian god, not the greek gods. None of them. We do not believe in any supernaturalistic faith or religion. That is the opposite of having religion or belief in god, which would require such a definition.

And this brings me to another thing that pisses me off about close-minded atheists: you act like it's enlightenment to believe in only what scientists tell you is real. Which really means you let others do your thinking for you, and then you follow them. Even worse, you refuse to think beyond any dimensions of the box they construct for you. How is thay intellectual? How is that smart or enlightened? I'd call it mentally handicapped. No?

Scientists can provide testable, repeatable evidence that has had a very real impact on the world. Scientists created the computer you're using with the same prinicples and truth-seeking foundation that has been a part of the human experience since man first produced fire, agriculture, and the wheel. Religion has done nothing and proven nothing. The difference is irrefutable.
Atheists often reject religion precisely on that basis. As such, neither science nor atheism is a kind of religion in any sense of the word. As was stated before, atheism is a lack of religion. The reason we've chosen this path is precisely because we weren't doing what we were told when we were growing up, otherwise, we'd still be going to church.
Those of us who do follow the scientific prinicples in seeking the truth of the world do so not because we've chosen to believe it to be true, but because those facts have been proven repeatedly by us (in school or professionally or both) and by scientists multiple times on demand. The same can not and never will be said by any religion on any spiritual matter despite having a head start to do all of that by several millenia. Yet, science has done more for humanity in our general advancement and enrichment in the past two hundred and ten years than religion has ever done in its entire lifetime.

So please, when you decide to go about in a diatribe, at least come to an understanding of what you're talking about before you begin in baseless accusations that are clearly rooted in ignorance.