atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> From: pjm@spe.com
> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:38 +0200
> Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)

>      Personal philosophies are a superset of personal religious
> beliefs.  Personal philosophies that include the concept of a god are
> clearly religious in nature.  Personal philosophies that include the
> concept of "faith" are probably religious in nature.  Personal
> philosophies that include the concepts of empirical evidence,
> sceptical inquiry, and willingness to reject previously held positions
> due to new evidence or argument are probably not religious in nature.

Here is the catch in your distinction, the belief in those empirical
positions is fundamentaly based on faith. Critical to those beliefs are
at least two (any scientist worth anything could list many more) assumptions
that can *only* be taken on faith:

The universe and its operation is isotropic and homogenious

So clearly a belief in science as a method to describe the relations between
individuals and nature (at whatever scale) is fundamentaly based on faith.

As to your assertion that such a belief system is not a religion, please
take the time to review pantheism. It is clearly a religion in that it
addresses the relationship of the individual, society, nature, and God.
It does so by abandoning transcendence. You really should read some of
Spinoza's work as well as William James'.

Everything a person believes, for or against, is fundamentaly based on
unprovable axiomatic assumptions whose (in)correctness is based on faith
and by extension a belief in the correctness of the holder and the implied
fallibility of all other individuals who hold beliefs to the contrary. In a
very real sense religion is the epitomy of hubris.

>      The reason I challenged your assertion is that religious people
> often use such statements as a basis for further arguments that end up
> equivocating based on the term religion.  They first broaden the
> definition, by fiat, to be almost meaningless and then later use a
> much narrower definition to support their ultimate point.  I'm not
> suggesting that you were going to do this; I am simply pointing out
> why it is something of a sore point.

This entire paragraph makes no sense.

>      No, they are not.  The distinction is crucial to the main point I
> evidently failed to make in my previous message:  Atheism is not a set
> of beliefs that constitutes a personal philosophy.  There are Buddhist
> atheists, Universalist-Unitarian atheists, objectivist atheists,
> Wiccan atheists, etc.  Atheism isn't even a belief, it is merely the
> statement of a lack of one particular belief.

No, atheism is the statement that "God could exist, but doesn't". Whether
one chooses to hang 'Bhuddism' or 'Wiccan' on is irrelevant. We aren't
discussion labels but rather characteristics. Fundamentaly *ALL* atheism
states:

While it could happen that way, I don't believe it does.

Which is identical in meaning to:

While it could happen that way, I believe it doesn't.

>      Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the weak atheist
> position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not constitute
> a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a
> religion.  The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do
> not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so does constitute
> a belief.

Try to sell that spin-doctor bullshit to somebody else, and read a book on
basic logic.

>      I'm not trying to prove anything either.  I'm simply pointing out
> some issues regarding atheism that are too often ignored or confused.

Hence you are trying to prove that atheism is confused or ignored and as a
result is misundestood. I've got news for you, it isn't either. If anyone is
confused (and about to be ignored) it's yourself.

>      Now this part of the discussion I entered to satisfy my own
> curiosity.  Since it is so far off-topic for this list I'd be glad to
> take it to personal email if you wish.

Thanks but I don't generaly exchange private mail with strangers.

>  When you say "more than the
> earthly veil" do you mean that there exist phenomena that cannot, even
> in principle, be detected by our five senses or by any physical
> mechanism we can create?  If so, how do you know and why would it
> matter?

You didn't understand a single word in that explanation of transcendance.

There are many(!) phenomena that occur in nature that are not transcendental
that we can't in principle or practice experience with our five senses. Take
your Machian view of reality somewhere else.

As to knowing if something matters or not, that is the fundamental issue
involved in the question:

Does God exist?

We're back to where we started.

Signing off.
 
    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Jim Choate wrote:

>Forwarded message:
>
>> From: pjm@spe.com
>> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:38 +0200
>> Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
>>
   [snip]

>No, atheism is the statement that "God could exist, but doesn't". Whether
>one chooses to hang 'Bhuddism' or 'Wiccan' on is irrelevant. We aren't
>discussion labels but rather characteristics. Fundamentaly *ALL* atheism
>states:
>
>While it could happen that way, I don't believe it does.
>
>Which is identical in meaning to:
>
>While it could happen that way, I believe it doesn't.
>
>>      Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the weak atheist
>> position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not constitute
>> a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a
>> religion.  The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do
>> not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so does constitute
>> a belief.
>
>Try to sell that spin-doctor bullshit to somebody else, and read a book on
>basic logic.
>
    agreed, the strong v. weak atheist argument is _impossible_. 
    
    however, an interesting premise I posited to my 14 year old son
    who had gone through his scientific awareness state and
    consequently declared himself an "aethist". at the time he was in
    a boarding school and we were in conversation with the chief
    counselor who happened to be a member of an LDS bishopric:
      
      kid:	  yes, an aethist.
      
      father:	  so... you "deny" God's existence since their is no
      		  "proof" of His existence. did you ever consider that in
      		  order to "deny" anything, you must have defined that
      		  concept?  in other words, to deny God, you must have
      		  determined that I or someone else has defined God in
      		  order for you to be able to "deny" God?
      ...
      counselor:  is there a difference between belief and faith?
      
      ...
      father:	  aethism is a concept which is almost impossible to
      		  define as it is a denial that if it could it doesnt.
      		  it is much easier to defend "agnosticism" where you
      		  admit you do not believe, or have faith, because you
      		  lack sufficient scientific proof. aethism is not
     		  doubting, it is denying, even in the face of proof.
      
      		  consider this in terms of both belief and faith:
		  
		  suppose you die, and despite your lack of belief or
		  faith, you find yourself before the throne of God.
		  
		  as your awareness returns, you look up and the image
		  of God is the image of an orangutan --now what are
		  you going to do?
		  
    without missing a heartbeat:
		  
      counselor:  I think you better get down on your knees and pray!

    I seriously thought I would face an LDS disciplinary council for
    that spontaneous off-the-wall comment. I didn't, but I have rocked
    more than a few boats. and, it does point out the extent to which
    belief is based on faith. to the literalists who point to Genesis
    and "God created man in his own image" I always suggest that God
    in the process could have refined homo sapiens over the years and 
    the original creation may have been significantly more endowed
    with hair; secondly, God can appear to man in any form He chooses:
    the burning bush, the blinding light to Saul, etc.
    
    however, stating beliefs and disbeliefs is fine; trying to convince
    another whose beliefs or disbeliefs are securely anchored in whatever
    they believe as truth, is futile. I will accept, without trying to
    change, anyone's "religious" beliefs as their beliefs; I only ask 
    they extend the same tolerance to me.
    
	attila out...

>
    [snip]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be.
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNgZuCj7vNMDa3ztrEQLR7gCg7cqx1bA29pe+fBCb7DcyPundpGsAn39U
hhEHvCh4fgriwDbOO/QbTdn3
=gsVI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Kropotkin said, long ago, something on the order of: "If there were a God,
we should assasinate him." That is what I would call a strong atheist
statement.

I (as a militant atheist) merely say that if you can define your God, I can
probably prove he doesn't exist. Unless, of course, your definition is so
broad as to have no meaning in the first place.

| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| Hash: SHA1
|
| On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Jim Choate wrote:
|
| >Forwarded message:
| >
| >> From: pjm@spe.com
| >> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:38 +0200
| >> Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
| >>
|    [snip]
|
| >No, atheism is the statement that "God could exist, but
| doesn't". Whether
| >one chooses to hang 'Bhuddism' or 'Wiccan' on is irrelevant.
| We aren't
| >discussion labels but rather characteristics. Fundamentaly
| *ALL* atheism
| >states:
| >
| >While it could happen that way, I don't believe it does.
| >
| >Which is identical in meaning to:
| >
| >While it could happen that way, I believe it doesn't.
| >
| >>      Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the
| weak atheist
| >> position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not
| constitute
| >> a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a
| >> religion.  The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do
| >> not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so
| does constitute
| >> a belief.
| >
| >Try to sell that spin-doctor bullshit to somebody else, and
| read a book on
| >basic logic.
| >
|     agreed, the strong v. weak atheist argument is _impossible_.
|
|     however, an interesting premise I posited to my 14 year old son
|     who had gone through his scientific awareness state and
|     consequently declared himself an "aethist". at the time he was in
|     a boarding school and we were in conversation with the chief
|     counselor who happened to be a member of an LDS bishopric:
|
|       kid:	  yes, an aethist.
|
|       father:	  so... you "deny" God's existence since their is no
|       		  "proof" of His existence. did you
| ever consider that in
|       		  order to "deny" anything, you must
| have defined that
|       		  concept?  in other words, to deny
| God, you must have
|       		  determined that I or someone else has
| defined God in
|       		  order for you to be able to "deny" God?
|       ...
|       counselor:  is there a difference between belief and faith?
|
|       ...
|       father:	  aethism is a concept which is almost impossible to
|       		  define as it is a denial that if it
| could it doesnt.
|       		  it is much easier to defend
| "agnosticism" where you
|       		  admit you do not believe, or have
| faith, because you
|       		  lack sufficient scientific proof.
| aethism is not
|      		  doubting, it is denying, even in the face of proof.
|
|       		  consider this in terms of both belief
| and faith:
|
| 		  suppose you die, and despite your lack of belief or
| 		  faith, you find yourself before the throne of God.
|
| 		  as your awareness returns, you look up and the image
| 		  of God is the image of an orangutan --now what are
| 		  you going to do?
|
|     without missing a heartbeat:
|
|       counselor:  I think you better get down on your knees and pray!
|
|     I seriously thought I would face an LDS disciplinary council for
|     that spontaneous off-the-wall comment. I didn't, but I have rocked
|     more than a few boats. and, it does point out the extent to which
|     belief is based on faith. to the literalists who point to Genesis
|     and "God created man in his own image" I always suggest that God
|     in the process could have refined homo sapiens over the years and
|     the original creation may have been significantly more endowed
|     with hair; secondly, God can appear to man in any form He chooses:
|     the burning bush, the blinding light to Saul, etc.
|
|     however, stating beliefs and disbeliefs is fine; trying
| to convince
|     another whose beliefs or disbeliefs are securely anchored
| in whatever
|     they believe as truth, is futile. I will accept, without trying to
|     change, anyone's "religious" beliefs as their beliefs; I only ask
|     they extend the same tolerance to me.
|
| 	attila out...
|
| >
|     [snip]
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
| Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
| Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be.
| Charset: noconv
|
| iQA/AwUBNgZuCj7vNMDa3ztrEQLR7gCg7cqx1bA29pe+fBCb7DcyPundpGsAn39U
| hhEHvCh4fgriwDbOO/QbTdn3
| =gsVI
| -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|

attila writes:
 >     agreed, the strong v. weak atheist argument is _impossible_. 

     I'll try one last time and then let this grossly off-topic thread
continue without me.

     The weak atheist position is a _lack_ of belief.  No knowledge
claim is made.  This position can come from a number of perspectives,
one common one being that the concept denoted by the word "god" is
incoherent.  If a concept is without meaning then it doesn't make
sense to claim to believe that it doesn't exist; such a claim would
itself be incoherent.

     The strong atheist position that god(s) do not exist does
constitute a knowledge claim.  It implies that the holder of the
position associates a particular, meaningful concept with the word
"god".  It doesn't, however, indicate anything about the other beliefs
of the atheist in question.

     There must be some 'net law regarding the effort required to make
a point being inversely proportional to the complexity and importance
of that point....

Regards,

pjm

Jim Choate writes:
[ A bunch of gratuitously obnoxious nonsense indicating a lack of
  reading comprehension skills coupled with no capacity for critical
  thinking. ]

     That makes two rude replies in a row in response to polite
messages.  I'll give anyone the benefit of one bad hair day, but
further discussion with you is obviously a waste of time.  I do thank
you for demonstrating that "transcendence" is not a null concept,
however.  You are without a doubt a transcendent asshole.

     I retire from this discussion and yield the floor to you,
Mr. Choate.  It is only fitting, seeing as you've gone to such trouble
to deposit that large pile of fecal matter in the middle of it.

Regards,

pjm