ATHEIST DOGMA

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
Philosophy
logiczombie
Libertarian
intp

Posts

Total: 90
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
One personal conclusion I have made is that Atheists have far too much Faith for me, to be able to declare that there is no Creator, while breathing.
The Christians are the original Atheists.

In primal cultures, competing tribes would always argue, "our gods are more powerful than your gods".

The Christians changed this to, "your gods don't even exist", "you're all just superstitious idiots".

Atheists believe exactly what the Christians believe regarding the existence of gods, they just happen to believe in one less.

I'm not sure I'd call that "faith".

I mean, how much "faith" does it take to NOT-believe in Santa Claus?

How much "faith" does it take to NOT-believe in Nanabozho?

The (self-described) Atheists that I've spoken to often complain that their position is often misunderstood.

Calling someone by what they're NOT is a rather peculiar phenomenon.

It would be like everyone calling you a "non-astronaut" or a "non-stamp-collector".

MOST (but not all) people who call themselves "Atheist" try to make it clear that they are NOT saying there is NO POSSIBLE GOD(S).  Instead, they're simply asserting that there is no compelling evidence of any SPECIFIC GOD(S).

In the same way it takes no "faith" to disbelieve in Russell's Teapot.

And often, the word "GOD" is an implicit reference to the "YHWH", and that one is particularly incoherent.

That isn't to say that Atheists are free of superstition.

A frightening number of Atheists still believe in the ridiculous concept of "freewill".

And they don't even have the good sense to call that "faith", they just call it "common sense".


I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
#2
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
yeah, humans are just advanced biological robots, makes perfect sense. even though it looks like something other than the universe caused the universe, we'll just pretend that isn't true, makes perfect sense. even though things that look like miracles dont happen to athesits but happen to theists all the time, we'll just ignore that too, makes perfect sense. even though there's plenty of evidence for out of body experiences and experiencing the afterlife when folks die, we'll ignore all science into that matter, and just pretend people hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die (never just random hallucinations either, always elaborate stories of some kind)... makes perfect sense. 
Topic's author
#3
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
yeah, humans are just advanced biological robots, makes perfect sense.
I'd love to believe otherwise.

Are you aware of any evidence that humans can violate cause-and-effect that you'd like to share?
Topic's author
#4
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
even though it looks like something other than the universe caused the universe, we'll just pretend that isn't true, makes perfect sense.
Certainly, the "origins" of "the cosmos" are beyond our epistemological limits.

How exactly does that "prove" anything except "we don't know"?
Topic's author
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
even though things that look like miracles dont happen to athesits but happen to theists all the time, we'll just ignore that too, makes perfect sense.
Unexplained and inexplicable events happen to Atheists AND Theists all the time.

Teh "science" is incapable of "explaining everything".

HOWeVeR, logic does a pretty reasonable job of eliminating certain impossibilities.

Imagine a scenario where a child is playing on a yacht and falls overboard, someone yells "my child just fell overboard!!" and ten people nearby all start praying to their different gods to keep the child safe.  Luckily, the child is recovered unharmed and each one of the bystanders tries to claim that it was their specific prayer to their specific god that led to the rescue.

How do you determine which god(s) actually protected the child?
Topic's author
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
even though there's plenty of evidence for out of body experiences and experiencing the afterlife when folks die, we'll ignore all science into that matter, and just pretend people hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die (never just random hallucinations either, always elaborate stories of some kind)... makes perfect sense. 
Have you ever had a dream?
#7
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
i can't prove that humans aren't just robots, but just think about it, use common sense. we sure as shit dont look seem like robots. so, maybe we're not? at least if we have any reason to think we might not be, maybe we should entertain the idea that maybe we're not robots. it's ridiculous to even argue the point, that no we're not robots, but atheists have such hardened hearts and minds. 

ive posted examples, such as someone's damaged retina suddenly becoming healed. something impossible. never seen that level of miracle happen to atheists. 

it's possible people are just hallucinating afterlife stories, but it doesn't look like it. even if they do, it's still a stretch to think people just consistently hallucinate afterlife stories when they die. plus all the evidence that skeptics just ignore that point to them being authentic. from another thread here...
"i encourage folks to read Dr. Long’s book “evidence of the afterlife” to get some concrete science that points to NDEs being more than just hallucinations. for example, when out of body experiences are studied under scientific conditions, the folks who have the experience are almost always accurate in describing events that happened outside their body while they were dead. folks who try to just guess what happened outside their body are almost always way off. the book mentions the work of heart surgeon (skeptic turned believer in the ‘realness’ of NDEs) Dr. Parnia, the AWARE study, where a couple experiences accurately describe events outside the body in a verified and documented situation. another factoid, is that folks meet relatives during the experience and the relatives are almost always dead: if this was just a hallucination, folks would experience living folks and less relatives a lot more often. then there’s how drugs dont replicate the NDE….. drug experiences are almost always random experiences, random imagery in hallucinations, not consistent stories with common themes of the afterlife like NDEs. also, there’s the fact that common themes like tunnels and meeting a being of light are consistent when measured and documented across cultures and with people who have never heard of NDEs, including young kids. finally there’s just a philosophical point…. the idea that people just consistently hallucinate afterlife stories when they die pushes credibility. is there some story embedded in our brain or genes or something? it’s a ridiculous notion.
there’s a load of other scientific factoids in that book. i highly recommend it. clearly there’s something deeper going on with NDEs than just hallucinations."

Topic's author
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
i can't prove that humans aren't just robots, but just think about it, use common sense. we sure as shit dont look seem like robots. so, maybe we're not? at least if we have any reason to think we might not be, maybe we should entertain the idea that maybe we're not robots.
I agree.  It's a compelling HYPOTHESIS.

it's ridiculous to even argue the point, that no we're not robots,
I agree.  Actions are (EITHER) caused by previous events (OR) indistinguishable from random.

Caused events cannot be FREE.

Random events cannot be WILLED.

FREE and WILL are mutually exclusive qualifiers.

but atheists have such hardened hearts and minds. 
That's the funny thing.  Most Atheists I've encountered actually DO believe in "freewill".
Topic's author
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
ive posted examples, such as someone's damaged retina suddenly becoming healed. something impossible. never seen that level of miracle happen to atheists. 
I have personally witnessed miraculous healing.

Many traditions have a rich and credible history of miraculous healing.

Which one of these "gods" do you think is responsible for this?
Topic's author
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's possible people are just hallucinating afterlife stories, but it doesn't look like it. even if they do, it's still a stretch to think people just consistently hallucinate afterlife stories when they die. plus all the evidence that skeptics just ignore that point to them being authentic. from another thread here...
I'm willing to grant these "afterlife experiences" are 100% REAL-TRUE-FACT.

HOwEver, these individual experiences often contradict formal religious scripture.

Based on this compelling (true) story, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcOvWGuQTow - which religion should I subscribe to?
Topic's author
#11
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
is there some story embedded in our brain or genes or something? it’s a ridiculous notion.
Not necessarily "ridiculous".

Human brains have evolved to react very similarly to a wide variety of situations and substances.

Researchers at the University of Michigan have also found evidence that NDEs may reflect hallucinations provoked by an oxygen-starved brain, rather than the postdeath survival of consciousness. They measured brain activity in mice 30 seconds after inducing clinical death by cardiac arrest. The scientists expected to find the dead brains chaotic and dysfunctional, if active at all. Instead, they measured greater activity than during normal, alert wakefulness—with brain waves so organized and coherent they seemed to indicate a truly functional mind. - [LINK]

I guess, all mice go to heaven.
#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
The whole of my religion is to refrain from pretending that I know something for certain when I don't.  
Therefore, I make no assumptions about the quantity or quality of the imperceptible.
Topic's author
#13
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Without DOGMA, can your hypothesis really be considered a properly qualified RELIGION?
#14
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Without DOGMA, can your hypothesis really be considered a properly qualified RELIGION?

If we define DOGMA as "an authoritative principle" and RELIGION as an "adherence to principle" then yes.  If your definition of  RELIGION requires some assertion of faith,  (which is a legit definition for the word) then no.
Topic's author
#15
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
So, what do you call yourself?
#16
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
oromagi, nice to meet you

I might also say a failed Roman Catholic but dodging labels would be closer to the truth.
Topic's author
#17
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Ok, so oromagi is your religion?
#18
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
you asked what I called myself: oromagi.  Call it failed Roman Catholic humor.
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Yep, we're all organic devices from the same mould, displaying variable programming and output.


I accept the idea of a GOD principle, but not a particular stylised deity....So does that make me atheist.

I certainly do not feel the need to make a song and dance about it on a Sunday morning.
Topic's author
#20
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
I accept the idea of a GOD principle, but not a particular stylised deity....So does that make me atheist.
Yes.

You are "NOT a theist".

You might call yourself a DEIST (if you're pretty sure there's some sort of NOUMENON).

And if you've never experienced GNOSIS (or have no memory of such an experience), you might call yourself an Agnostic ("NOT a GNOSTIC").
#21
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Actions are (EITHER) caused by previous events (OR) indistinguishable from random.

Caused events cannot be FREE.

Random events cannot be WILLED.

FREE and WILL are mutually exclusive qualifiers.

About the word "FREE".  I would like to think that "Caused Events" are a little more complex than simply "free or not-free" (boolean).  Like photons which can be both a wave and a particle (double-slit experiment), I'd like to think that the causal factors of a "Caused Event" exist as a "probability wave", not a straight line leading to "free or not-free".

Our brains (facts and emotions existing in an intricate web), along with the outside stimuli of people, buildings, weather, activity, etc., would make "Caused Events" dependent on a million different, sometimes minuscule, things. 

True, we are set up to be programmed by experience and applied emotion.  But with the addition of our prefrontal cortex we have the ability to become self-programmers.  We become aware of our own tendencies and patterns and can use reason to re-program ourselves. 

I know nothing is completely free.  But I think learning how humans are programmed by nature, in addition to some serious self-study, can actually lead to a little bit of freedom.   If we are truly merely cause and effect, then we should be able to use our latest hardware upgrade (prefrontal cortex) to train the earlier parts of ourselves to behave in new and more productive ways. 

Maybe I'm wrong.
#22
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
That is a lovely sentiment and I'd like to believe that too. The trouble is that I don't. You see it is an unfalsifiable claim. In fact you as much as admitted so which I can respect. 
#23
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
That is a lovely sentiment and I'd like to believe that too. The trouble is that I don't. You see it is an unfalsifiable claim. In fact you as much as admitted so which I can respect. 
I don't think it is "unfalsifiable", but I will admit I don't hold a degree in psychology or physiology.  So empirical evidence is beyond me at this point.  I'll just call it hope (for now).  :)
#24
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,263
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Saying atheists have "faith-based belief," or calling them religious, simply strike me as ways of turning common atheistic criticisms back upon atheists. "I tar you with your own brush, take that!" etc.

MOST (but not all) people who call themselves "Atheist" try to make it clear that they are NOT saying there is NO POSSIBLE GOD(S). Instead, they're simply asserting that there is no compelling evidence of any SPECIFIC GOD(S).
Exactly my problem with them. You do not get to 'make clear' that the definition you operate under, isn't what you actually operate under. Then don't call yourself an Atheist.
Atheist always fall back on 'AGNOSTIC' criteria when it suits them.
No, ATHEISM IS THE REJECTION OF ANY GOD.
If someone isn't sure, or just says, 'well there is no proof I don't know' then they are agnostic. To take the FAITH based belief that 'there is no creator' is just that, FAITH.
All right, he's making me almost tempted to sign up to Hive now just to jump in this.

So, here's my question.
Do you have "faith" that NANABOZHO is real?
Do you have "faith" that NANABOZHO is fake?
Are you suggesting that both positions require equal "faith"?
^ He never did directly answer this question of yours, did he?
#25
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
it is an unfalsifiable claim. 

empirical evidence is beyond me at this point. 

These two statements agree with each other.
#26
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
it is an unfalsifiable claim. 

empirical evidence is beyond me at this point. 

These two statements agree with each other.

They do not.  They only prove that "I" cannot, not that others cannot. 
#27
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
If you cannot demonstrate your claim then it deserves to be dismissed. 
#28
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
If you cannot demonstrate your claim then it deserves to be dismissed. 
Rude, but accurate. I thought we were discussing ideas, not formally debating.  Still . . . lesson learned.

However, I still think cause, and its eventual effect, is more likw a probability wave than a fixed boolean expression.  And animals form habits through positive and negative reinforcement.  So do we.  But we can decide to change a bad habit and provide the reinforcement ourselves.  We can provide the cue, the response and the reward that programs our habits.  We can make a choice to reprogram.   These are just ideas.   You can dismiss them at "will".  :)
#29
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@lady3keys
It is not meant to be rude. I am simply unable to maintain a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence and explaining why that is the case with regards to your argument. 
#30
lady3keys
lady3keys's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 210
1
2
6
lady3keys's avatar
lady3keys
1
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I am simply unable to maintain a belief in the absence of sufficient evidence and explaining why that is the case with regards to your argument. 
My evidence is anecdotal at present and I am not trying to convince you to maintain or abandon any "belief" you have concerning free will.  But as with most things, the truth usually lies between the two extremes (free will and no free will).  That is the crux of my ideas.  My evidence is merely my ability to notice my failings, to analyze them and to reprogram my habits and attitudes to create different output than would otherwise be possible.   This is indirect free will (for me)  --- not trying to change you here.