Page 8 of 18

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:19 am
by Kurieuo
Neha wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Neha wrote:
what do you make of our universe having a beginning?
A foreign event to be sure if it started at all. What was that event particularly, is something I am not sure about. I imagine a force, it could may very well be a God, who can say for sure? Its all hypothesis for now.
I have limited time right now, but wanted to respond to these statements of yours...

Now I might be wrong, but it seems from your response that it wouldn't be technically correct to label you an "Atheist", not even a weak form of Atheist. Perhaps Agnostic as to God's existence... It sounds to me as though you more believe God does probably exist, but it anything are annoyed by the complacency of such a being in the face of many bad things that happens in life... such that it's just easier if you don't believe.

I know I said Atheism is largely an emotional response earlier, but that's not necessarily intended in an entirely negative manner. I very much consider emotional arguments can possess much validity, and should not be rejected out of hand. If anything experiences and feelings add a "realness" if you will to some rational arguments which are often quite dry. So I do not dismiss such out of hand, and while very different to rational arguments, they can nonetheless be valid is some respect. We are human after all... and experience invokes all sorts of very real and valid emotions. It's just a different form if you will to an if A then B, A therefore B type of argument.

In any case, I'm only reading your words on a screen, but it seems to be that you do allow the possibility of God... albeit not a god who really is loves or cares about us. From your words, while you label yourself an Atheist, I'm just not seeing or perceiving you as one.
I am open to the possibility of a God but only when I believe a God when I will not be an atheist ;) . I know many atheists who are open to possibility of God, just don't find him. Early christians were accused of being atheists by the romans because they did not believe in Zeus or Apollo. Anyways I am not big on labels, I don't mind you calling me an agnostic atheist, as long as you don't think I am still a christian, (I have been called that too by folks who still think I am a child of God having full pardon and an everlasting life).
I normally point that out to atheists -- that romans called Christians atheist. :)

But since you're not big on labels, do you mind me calling you an agnostic theist? Much more prefer you associate closer to me on my side than the other.

Don't worry, I'll keep in mind not to call you Christian. Just beware of a person called Jac on this board, because he may still see you as saved. ;)

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:31 am
by Neha
Kurieuo wrote:
Neha wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Neha wrote:
what do you make of our universe having a beginning?
A foreign event to be sure if it started at all. What was that event particularly, is something I am not sure about. I imagine a force, it could may very well be a God, who can say for sure? Its all hypothesis for now.
I have limited time right now, but wanted to respond to these statements of yours...

Now I might be wrong, but it seems from your response that it wouldn't be technically correct to label you an "Atheist", not even a weak form of Atheist. Perhaps Agnostic as to God's existence... It sounds to me as though you more believe God does probably exist, but it anything are annoyed by the complacency of such a being in the face of many bad things that happens in life... such that it's just easier if you don't believe.

I know I said Atheism is largely an emotional response earlier, but that's not necessarily intended in an entirely negative manner. I very much consider emotional arguments can possess much validity, and should not be rejected out of hand. If anything experiences and feelings add a "realness" if you will to some rational arguments which are often quite dry. So I do not dismiss such out of hand, and while very different to rational arguments, they can nonetheless be valid is some respect. We are human after all... and experience invokes all sorts of very real and valid emotions. It's just a different form if you will to an if A then B, A therefore B type of argument.

In any case, I'm only reading your words on a screen, but it seems to be that you do allow the possibility of God... albeit not a god who really is loves or cares about us. From your words, while you label yourself an Atheist, I'm just not seeing or perceiving you as one.
I am open to the possibility of a God but only when I believe a God when I will not be an atheist ;) . I know many atheists who are open to possibility of God, just don't find him. Early christians were accused of being atheists by the romans because they did not believe in Zeus or Apollo. Anyways I am not big on labels, I don't mind you calling me an agnostic atheist, as long as you don't think I am still a christian, (I have been called that too by folks who still think I am a child of God having full pardon and an everlasting life).
I normally point that out to atheists -- that romans called Christians atheist. :)

But since you're not big on labels, do you mind me calling you an agnostic theist? Much more prefer you associate closer to me on my side than the other.

Don't worry, I'll keep in mind not to call you Christian. Just beware of a person called Jac on this board, because he may still see you as saved. ;)
I am not a theist but I am open to theism. So if you call me an agnostic theist it would be misrepresent me, perhaps even cause confusion in threads.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:40 am
by Danieltwotwenty
I see you have taken up the challenge Neha, I am impressed at your honesty and candor.

I must say it is refreshing to see some conversation where both sides can show their hand.

You make some interesting points, some I agree with and some I do not.

But I might bow out for now as I don't want to overload you with responses and I might come back later and see how the conversation has progressed.

Glad to have you on the board and I hope we didn't get off on the wrong foot, I know some times I can get defensive but it's hard not to be sometimes, if you hang around for awhile you will understand why.

I would like to say, please don't judge anyone by just one remark or flippant comment, everyone here is only human and we are just as broken and messed up as the next person, carrying with us all the baggage that life has lumped on us. As Christians we are not always going to get it right, we are far from perfection but understand that we do try to love everyone and that includes you, but we also fail to live up to the love of Christ.

Peace y@};- sister

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:10 am
by Rubberneck
Kurieuo wrote:I just want to clarify a main purpose to this thread and my original post.

In examining worldviews in a logical manner, I find it important to rational justification to have a coherent set of beliefs. Atheism is a view of the world without God. And so, what does such a world look like?
Well if I aim to help understanding, I can start by telling you that atheism isn’t a world view. It’s simply a label given to someone who has concluded that they don’t believe gods exist. A world view is based on what you factor in, not what you take out. You seem to be elevating a theistic outlook to a position where it demands respect by default, and that we should have to look at things minus a God. That really isn’t the case. Atheism is a world view as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
If our universe had a beginning, and God is not responsible for creating our universe what else?
More God as the default answer. Like I said, to an atheist God isn’t factored in or out, so it’s more reasonable to just ask, “If our universe had a beginning, then what could have started it off?” (if that even makes sense). The best answer I can give you is a quantum nucleation event, but I only believe that to be the best explanation/hypothesis we currently have, and don’t hold a belief that it is the answer. It’s currently under scrutiny and criticism itself.
How is it we can depend upon our experiences, if our senses aren't necessarily "designed" for truth but rather "survival"
I really would like to attempt an answer here, but the question is a bit wishy-washy. I think I appreciate what you’re trying to say, but I would say with our instincts geared towards survival our past experiences, along with instinct, are all little tests used as a filtering process where we decipher what actions are most beneficial for survival. Without the urge to survive first, your discovery of any truth is hindered. Of course, you could then argue whether survival itself is a truth.
How is it that chemicals and physical processes can rise above itself to produce a sentient and free being that we intuit ourselves to be?
I’m going to bore you again here, double time, because I don’t believe in free will, but then I don’t believe in determinism either. Intuitively, yes, we behave as if we have free will, but if that free will is dependent on chemical and physical processes, then we’re not free of those. This is pandering to monism though, where sentience is seen as an emergent property of those processes. If you take the dualist approach (which is the position I think you would take?), then you can bypass those processes so that sentience is free of them. It throws up some ponderings though, for example, how do we freely decide to exist?
Where is there room for a "self" in a view where who we are is determined by physical processes? Why do "I" sense... why do "I" feel... why do "I" think... matter and energy don't have sentience do they?
A determinist does not an atheist make. Anyway, similar to above, we’re back to the “hard problem”. However, from a perspective where we are determined by physical processes, the “self” is seen as an emergent property of these processes. If you dig down deep enough into it, even under genetics and epigenetics, individuality can also be seen to be determined by quantum randomness. As a reminder, I am not a determinist.
What is it about the physical laws which appear contingent in that they could be other than what they are -- the universe and laws within could be an unpredictable chaotic mess and yet they run in such a predictable and stable manner?
Is this a stitching together of the fine-tuned argument and the intelligible universe argument? Anyway, I don’t agree that they could be other than what they are, any more than I agree that they couldn’t be other than what they are. We have one universe - a set of one, so we currently have nothing else to compare it to.
How can you be sure that "death" is really the cessation of "life" rather than some different journey if you have not experienced death and don't know, can't be certain about what underpins our reality?
Depends how you define “death” I suppose. If you define death as “ceasing to live”, then if you continue to live, you’re not dead. If you’re alluding to death within the current reality we perceive (or physical death), then I can’t be sure if that death is the end, any more than I can be sure that death isn’t the end. That’s probably another boring answer.
These are all big questions to be sure, but are they unfair? I don't think so. An epistemically justified view of the world may not be able to answer all questions, but surely a more justified position would possess a set coherent beliefs that make sense of many question. For me, a view of the world without God creates many incoherencies that are often just assumed (even borrowed from Theism), but not ever really questioned within a framework without God.
As I’ve already stated, a world view where God isn’t factored in is not built around God not being factored in, so it’s a straw-man.
One can't question enough, and yet Atheism seems to raise many questions while answering none to relatively few. And yet, many Atheists I come across seem to think they have a more enlightened and rationally justified position...?
Who doesn’t think they hold the most rationally justified position, though?
So why should I embrace such a position? Certainly not based on any rational justification.
See what I mean?
But rather Atheism it seems to me is a position born out of an "emotional" response to God. Why is life unfair? Why do bad things happen? Why was I even born? Where is this "good God"? Why should I care if He doesn't? These are all question often put forth by non-Christians or so-call people who don't believe in God (for example, Neha, the most recent Atheist to enter the fray here).
These are emotional questions to which there are logical responses, but rationalisation does little to deal with emotionalisation.
You know what, removing your generalisation that it’s atheism, and changing it to some atheists, I’d totally agree. I’ve even in the past had it out with other atheists who have concluded that they don’t believe a god exists based purely on emotion and questions like these, my wife as prime example. However, these questions are only dealing with a god who is some moral arbiter or grounder of morality, where they question the morality and benevolence of such a god. “Surely an omnibenevolent God wouldn’t allow that girl to be raped, or for my child to die at birth” etc etc I find the moral argument pointless and irrefutable, the main problem being that it’s objective morality that is being argued, which brings us back to nihilism.
Any road, while the Christian God is seen as a moral agent, not all concepts of god include this, yet I don’t believe those versions exist either. I do not base my conclusion of atheism on the idea that god is unfair and lets “bad” things happen. I agree with you that that is irrational.
And so, I revert to my conclusion that your issue with God, especially given your lack of having a set of beliefs on important questions in a world without God, let alone a coherent set of beliefs... is in actuality an emotional issue. Your subjective preference is therefore to believe God does not exist.
I literally face-palmed when I read this. First off, I don’t believe God does not exist. Secondly, I have no issue with God. Thirdly, and repeatedly, any sets of beliefs pertaining to a world view are based on what you factor in, not take out.
Re: whatever you perceive as some angst, axe to grind, moaning or crying... while I don't see what is so unreasonable about seeking answers to what I consider to be important question from another world view.... I apologise if I'm too much like Spock, or come across as being on some pedestal. This is the forum however for Questioning Non-belief and hence my post. Perhaps you disagree with such a forum altogether, in which case there are other forums on the board that'd likely be better suited to you.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to seek answers from a different world view. What I find silly is that you’re moaning that others don’t hold a contrasting belief to yours, and that they should in order to criticise. I find that absurd.
I never said you were emotionless in your posts, only that it’s difficult not to portray it.
I think this forum is a good idea, I wouldn’t have signed up if I thought otherwise.
Again, really, no hard feelings (I hope). And I really don't find you that boring... just your lack of beliefs.
I don’t expect non-beliefs in anything are really that exciting, but perhaps the reasons can be.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:34 am
by RickD
Kurieuo wrote:
Don't worry, I'll keep in mind not to call you Christian. Just beware of a person called Jac on this board, because he may still see you as saved.
Jac may not be the only one...

Somehow, I find it difficult to believe someone who was once a YEC, never trusted Christ for salvation.

So Neha, can you tell us a little about when you were younger? Did you trust Christ for your salvation? If yes, what happened that turned you away?

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:56 am
by PaulSacramento
We tend to create God in our own image, based on how we understand things.
When we read the bible or absorb what we are told by others about God, we tend to either believe or not based on the kind of God we THINK actually exists OR the type of God we THINK should exist if we wanted God to exist ( or not exist for that matter).

What we need to understand is that when we see that OUR understanding of God doesn't mesh well with this or that that is causing us to doubt our faith, we must realize that what is in doubt is NOT God's existence BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING of who and what God is.

I had a very hard time believing in God because of suffering and natural disasters and the suffering of innocents and so forth, it was the biggest roadblock to my believing in God.
Of course the issue was NOT God, but what I THOUGHT/WANTED God to be/do for Us.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:42 pm
by Kurieuo
Neha wrote:
K wrote: I normally point that out to atheists -- that romans called Christians atheist. :)

But since you're not big on labels, do you mind me calling you an agnostic theist? Much more prefer you associate closer to me on my side than the other.

Don't worry, I'll keep in mind not to call you Christian. Just beware of a person called Jac on this board, because he may still see you as saved. ;)
I am not a theist but I am open to theism. So if you call me an agnostic theist it would be misrepresent me, perhaps even cause confusion in threads.
Fair enough.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:22 pm
by Kurieuo
Neha, just want to go back and respond to what you previously presented.

Firstly, I'd like to clarify something to try and provide more understanding here to Atheists or those who consider themselves on the other side of the discussion to me here.

Others who have responded to my original post think I'm making some attack or straw man argument. But, if you read over my full original post carefully, it's not really any kind of argument at all.

Rather, I state my displeasure discussing the nature of reality with Atheists because they generally offer nothing on the table. That is for me a big issue if I was to ever rationally turn away from belief in God as I'll further explain. You however, appear to have placed something on the table. Whether or not rationally consistent with not believing in God is another question, but nonetheless I appreciate you offering up a response from where you currently are in life.

To better understand me and where I'm coming from in my original post, I'm a strong advocate for Coherentism when justifying any belief or what would entail if the lack thereof was true. Notwithstanding we as humans are also full of contradictions, I strongly believe that I'd accept that view which I see to be the most coherent with highest explanatory power. Could it be wrong? Sure. But generally, the more weight and support a position has behind it, the more rationally justified I am in assuming that position.

So for me, it is extremely important that I see a position as rationally justified, that it is truly internally coherent in a logical manner. Logic, if you couldn't tell, is a very big thing for me. And I don't make lightly of contradictions whether I find them in my beliefs or someone elses. It puzzles me, the person who will quite happily accept two obvious contradictions, or who chooses one belief or position over another according to their personal tastes. Truth is not a matter of taste like different flavoured icecreams. I'm a person who will stay up all night to try and work how two important beliefs within my worldview can be compatible. And I can't sleep until resolved, or feel all anxious, or depressed. It's a blessing being able to resolve puzzles, but it's also a curse that is quite draining.

Whether you hate me for that, or find my discussions too cut and dry... fine. I'm more than happy to discuss other things that are "less vulcan" and "more human".

Now, moving onto your responses...
Neha wrote:
what do you make of our universe having a beginning?
A foreign event to be sure if it started at all. What was that event particularly, is something I am not sure about. I imagine a force, it could may very well be a God, who can say for sure? Its all hypothesis for now.
The purpose of this question -- all my questions -- is to provide Atheists with the chance to make the Atheist position more coherent as a worldview. Or, if someone just facepalmed themselves on the way I purposefully choose to use the term "Atheist" (no names mentioned ;)) -- to try and make the position of a world without God more coherent.

Furthermore, in response to some others here, I don't care what intellectual redefining games some people like to play. There are two exclusive views here: Either God exists, or God does not exist. A stripped back Atheism, without any further rhetoric, is therefore plainly and simply the scenario where God does not exist.

While I hate pulling this distinction, I suppose my questions can only be answered by the strong form of Atheist. An Atheist who is quite decided their isn't God and will not pull back into an agnostic position. So perhaps these questions are not as relevant to someone like yourself where labels seem rather counter-intuitive (or Rubberneck even). Let's face it, we all attached labels to people, beliefs and what-not... but they're often less than ideal and can cloud issues and create many straw men. So... regardless of whatever one thinks of terms like "Atheist" I'm here dealing with a view of the world wherein there is no God/gods.

So getting back to your response, saying "a force, it could may very well be a God" is not a very good hypothesis for the Atheist position.

While you may be inclined to associate yourself with Atheism, I'm more inclined to think you don't know... and perhaps at this stage in your life journey, you don't really care about whether or not God exists. And if God does exist, then you have some very serious questions. But anyway, at least you're providing your responses even if they are inconsistent with Atheism.
Neha wrote:
Or how about our "self" -- are our actions and consciousness simply determined by the physical world of atoms,
This would only matter if you believe that God determines each of our actions, in lack of which I must find a determining factor as justification of my actions. But if there is no God, then our actions could be consequential at best, I am not sure why they need to be determined unless they fall upon a natural tendency for instance, a chemical firing in our brain like serotonin, which can make us feel happy.

For example I read someone saying in another thread (I think it was someone called jalay not sure) that without God, if I, an atheist loves my child, then that is no more important than an elephant fart. That is a very typical YEC line, one which the member here used quite freely. Perhaps you may think the same or not, I don't know, I hope you don't. But if you do, then you may also think that without a God, there is no such thing as love or happiness, true? Perhaps there is no objective reason to love or be kind or be happy or why even live? I mean why not I jump off a cliff if life has no objective value? I have heard that many times and perhaps by the tone of it, which you will agree is totally devoid of any love (I imagine christ and the disciples going around telling people to believe in him or else jump off cliffs) it never seems to hit the point for me. I see insult but I don't see love or care. But anyways, to your point which I am thinking would lead to the idea that love or similar actions cannot have value without God is something I don't find very true.

We godless people are not heartless chaps you know, we don't push our kids under the cars just because we don't believe there is a God. I may not have any christian justification of my love for my child but again, who says I need one. Even Paul in Romans 2, say that gentiles have the "law of God" written on their hearts? why do you think that is written like that? Is it because the having conscience is just natural for humans (even if its God ordained)? So if there is a God and you do believe there is one, then you don't need to ask this question because I assume you believe your scriptures to be true to the word. How in your world view does asking this question helps?

And that member who calls atheists' loving their children "elephant farts" needs to stop doing that too.

But I do understand and accept the fact that life is a strange marvel of nature. That its unique in many ways and that I am totally awed when I look across the universe. Do I see God, I see the possibility of one? But with no connotations of any kind, for now. You think your God is true but nearly all religions say the same.
Firstly, I don't believe God determines each of our actions. Rather, understand if we are Determined then we are not responsible for our actions. So for example, to say it is just for the rapist of a little girl to be punished, is simply nonsense. He had no control over his physical make-up any more than our bodies breathing or farting (if talking in Jlay's terms). ;) His actions were determined by something other than the rapist had control over.

Within Theism, we can account for some free will. In fact, Christianity is largely all about our free will and choosing to turn away from God. On a world wherein there is freedom, is it possible for the greatest good to be achieved - Love. Sadly, with such freedom one must also be free to choose the opposite - Hate. And so, there must be a real possibility for both, if love is really to be made possible. Notwithstanding there is much natural beauty and good in the world which must be equally explained, evil does exist and the amount of evil is restrained by physical boundaries including death.

There is an issue with Atheistic view of the world where we are not really free at all. Many seasoned Atheist philosophers argue for Determinism, for it appears to be an inevitable outcome of a purely materialist/physical position.

However, determinism means that people aren't good or bad, we just are. So now amorality is supported. There is no sense of justice in putting someone to death or in jail for their crimes, because "they" had no choice in the matter since their actions were determined by the environment and ultimately a bunch of atoms bouncing around. Our self-consciousness is simply an illusion of some sort, brought on perhaps by a certain arrangement of "things" in the physical world. Like fire burning wood produces smoke, our physical makeup in the arrangement that has happened produces a mental self-aware state ("the smoke"), yet all our decisions and actions are illusory. That is, "who we are" is ultimately reduced to atoms bouncing around.

There are of course different scenarios that try to answer the mind-body problem, but ultimately things are quite dire for any Materialists/Physicalists when it comes to explaining any freedoms we have at making free choices, choosing our professions, whether or not we steal, love, hate, kill. It is in a sense like a "fart" in that such actions are just the natural outworking of natural processes within our material physical bodies.

Richard Dawkins for all his pompous anti-religious chattering, held a position different to his Atheistic counterparts in philosophy in an exchange with the philosopher David Quinn. Since this exchange, it now appears Dawkins and those like him (Krauss) now dismiss philosophy and philosophers. Ha! That's like cutting your arm off in science because no you've go no way to come up with different scientific theories based on what gets observed.

Anyway, you can have a listen to their exchanges on determinism here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7SfEXAQTkA (highly recommend!)
Neha wrote:
or are we to at least some degree really free and responsible beings?
No one is really free in one way. I mean we all die. So we are all tied to chemistry or biology in one sense. But we can make choices too, like killing ourselves, drinking water, swimming etc, none of which needs to be hardwired like breathing as a reflex. So I don't think all actions can be swept under one word, as being determined or not.

Are we responsible? I am not sure I follow, responsible for what? I am sure we are free to do things we can, and not free at all to do things that are beyond our grasp.

If I you have more questions please feel free to let me know.
And so you would agree with me than that people really are responsibly for their actions?

For example, the person who rapes another, is really doing something wrong such that justice can be best served through their being appropriately punished?

You see, Determinism rips away any concepts that we are intuitively inclined to believe including that we are free to make some decisions, real good or bad, fairness or unfairness, justice, responsibilities and many other things. For me, I see the best form of determinism (if there is a best form) a world without God has to offer, is a randomly-based material/physical form of determinism. That simply means there is some randomness to our decisions, particularly caused at the quantum level of physics. Still, within such scenarios "we" (whoever we are) are still in no way responsible for the choices or actions of these bodies.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:32 pm
by Neha
K,
for me, it is extremely important that I see a position as rationally justified, that it is truly internally coherent in a logical manner. Logic, if you couldn't tell, is a very big thing for me. And I don't make lightly of contradictions whether I find them in my beliefs or someone elses. It puzzles me, the person who will quite happily accept two obvious contradictions, or who chooses one belief or position over another according to their personal tastes. Truth is not a matter of taste like different flavoured icecreams.
My personal opinion is, no world view is truly coherent, not even your faith. I agree with you that truth is not a matter of taste in an objective sense, but you will also agree that finding truth, is not always an easy a task as choosing an ice cream. Some truths are easily determined others are not. Philosophical justification may be easy to conclude in some event, not in others. It may help but not always.

For example, in a thread I came across randomly here was about a rabbi sucking babes' penesis during circumcision. And the aforementioned gentleman Jac, asked various members about the justification of their disgust about such a practice. In other words he was asking them to prove a philosophical objective justification for why sucking a baby's penis is wrong in circumcision if there are no sexual motives involved. Now that is a fair question but I will submit to you that even when it may be hard to pin down such a thing (and no member was able to answer Jac in that thread) that I have no objective reason to put down here to reject that practice, the truth is I still find it wrong. Now this is not an easy matter, who decides truth here. Perhaps someone may stand up and say they feel inside that this is right practice, but I, myself feel strongly against, so it is going to become a matter of taste.
Whether you hate me for that, or find my discussions too cut and dry... fine. I'm more than happy to discuss other things that are "less vulcan" and "more human".
I just expect some patience and some time, you know just think about what I say too. The same way you don't like your time wasted, is the same way I feel about my time and I also like to make friends. It would be a tremendous shame if you are not going to think about what I say, a one sided discussion is hardly a discussion at all, I hope you will agree. I am more than glad to do the same with you.
The purpose of this question -- all my questions -- is to provide Atheists with the chance to make the Atheist position more coherent as a worldview. Or, if someone just facepalmed themselves on the way I purposefully choose to use the term "Atheist" (no names mentioned ;)) -- to try and make the position of a world without God more coherent...

So getting back to your response, saying "a force, it could may very well be a God" is not a very good hypothesis for the Atheist position.

While you may be inclined to associate yourself with Atheism, I'm more inclined to think you don't know... and perhaps at this stage in your life journey, you don't really care about whether or not God exists. And if God does exist, then you have some very serious questions. But anyway, at least you're providing your responses even if they are inconsistent with Atheism.
Okay you need to think about this. There are two main groups of atheists. One is the like of P.Z Myers. Atheism is a movement, a philosophy, something you can hold onto, something you can define and live your life with. In short words a way of living, a philosophy of life, so to say. Then there is a another group which does not view atheism as a philosophy, nor as a world view. Infact it is bare minimum (I don't believe in such such god/gods) nothing else, NOTHING, period. Now this is the same definition under which Romans called Christians, atheists. And you wanted to call me an agnostic theist and I can also call you an atheist, since by this definition you don't believe in 99% of the other gods which are said to exist. Now by this definition you are as atheist as one can get. Would it be fair of me to ask you to defend atheism since you are also an atheist, you see the problem? That is what you are doing in most of this thread, what you have been asking for others and not finding. You are asking people to defend atheism as a philosophy. But really the only way this is going to work for you is if you happen to come across an atheist who falls under the group ala' Myers. That atheist who views atheism as a way of life and a philosophy, replacing morals with secular thought and all, can actually prove to you his her justified case as a coherent philosophy, since to him/her that would be true, in part as a belief or hard atheism, an 8 on the dawkins scale you know. I am a mere 5 or 6 on that. ;)

I can only share what I think because atheism to me not a philosophy at all. My atheism is very simple, it simply means "I lost faith in God", someone like me was called an apostate in old fashioned times. The rest for me is pretty much what C.S Lewis called the "the moral law" in the first chapters of "Mere Christianity"...or the the golden rule, etc. I try to do my best to others and expect the same kindness in return.

A lot of atheists are like me, they do not find God totally impossible. Many are non hostile towards the idea of a God. Many respect people of faith and many of them are absolute good people who either were NEVER-THEISTS or were dealt a bad hand by religion or church and didn't find any divine comfort, nor love. There is a very good chunk of people who falls under this. Who have had good reasons to reject faith. There is no philosophy behind this. They didn't do it for philosophy or whether which worldview is correct or not.

That being said, I do not run away from justifying how I perceive life, I don't. I understand that justifying a life without God can be problematic on some fronts and I also know some atheists just throw that part away without giving it much thought. But most atheists also have other good reasons. And sometimes they ask for valid justifications on the philosophy they left, like faith. For some the problem also exists on the other side and you need to understand that. Atheism is not always an angry hatred of God like anti-theists portray many atheists as having such.

Now, I want to respond to the rest of your post because I find it interesting but I have time to write only this much right now. It's still good I guess, because I would like to see how you respond to what I have written since I also want you to understand from where I am coming from, the same as you have show me in your previous post.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:52 pm
by Thadeyus
+1 Neha :thumbsup:

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:43 pm
by Kurieuo
Hi Neha,

I'll get started on a response, since you were wanting one although I'd not like the substance in my previous post to be forgotten.
Neha wrote:K,
for me, it is extremely important that I see a position as rationally justified, that it is truly internally coherent in a logical manner. Logic, if you couldn't tell, is a very big thing for me. And I don't make lightly of contradictions whether I find them in my beliefs or someone elses. It puzzles me, the person who will quite happily accept two obvious contradictions, or who chooses one belief or position over another according to their personal tastes. Truth is not a matter of taste like different flavoured icecreams.
My personal opinion is, no world view is truly coherent, not even your faith. I agree with you that truth is not a matter of taste in an objective sense, but you will also agree that finding truth, is not always an easy a task as choosing an ice cream. Some truths are easily determined others are not. Philosophical justification may be easy to conclude in some event, not in others. It may help but not always.

For example, in a thread I came across randomly here was about a rabbi sucking babes' penesis during circumcision. And the aforementioned gentleman Jac, asked various members about the justification of their disgust about such a practice. In other words he was asking them to prove a philosophical objective justification for why sucking a baby's penis is wrong in circumcision if there are no sexual motives involved. Now that is a fair question but I will submit to you that even when it may be hard to pin down such a thing (and no member was able to answer Jac in that thread) that I have no objective reason to put down here to reject that practice, the truth is I still find it wrong. Now this is not an easy matter, who decides truth here. Perhaps someone may stand up and say they feel inside that this is right practice, but I, myself feel strongly against, so it is going to become a matter of taste.
Hmm. Think of coherency this way.

You look at a jigsaw puzzle of one person, and see puzzle pieces forced together. Clearly these pieces do not all join up together correctly. There are a lot of missing pieces. It is rather incomplete.

Next you look at the same jigsaw puzzle being put together by another person. The puzzle pieces seem to be cleanly joined together without being forced, and while incomplete it is definitely a much fuller picture...

My question to you is if the full puzzle were to be revealed then who is more likely to have the correct picture -- the second no?

None may be fully complete or correct at every join, and I'm not asking anyone here to provide a complete picture. I'm saying one belief should fit with another belief, and another belief, and another belief without any contradiction or force-fitting going on. Especially those bigger beliefs we often intuitively hold to like morality.

One piece of the puzzle you have embraced above, is that some form of morality stands above humanity such that something is wrong in and of itself. I agree with you that even personal distaste aside of this Jewish sect (?), that what the Rabbi is doing is morally wrong.

Now Christianity provides a puzzle piece for this, because God has imparted into us a standard of His righteousness. Such that, our conscience even bares witness against us via guilt and whatnot when we do something wrong. We may not know why, but we intuitively just seem to know. Now this moral standard may become dimmed, distorted and even corrupted, but for most of us, unless we're psychopathic, we still intuit many things as wrong for no other reason than it is obviously wrong.

A secular stance might say that we simply evolved these feelings of morality to help our species survive, but nothing is truly wrong or right. This doesn't sit well with me. It conflicts with other puzzle pieces like "justice", "fairness", "good", "bad", "equality" and basically any inherent "rights" and "value" assigned to humans. I may not be able to objectively see this moral standard, but every inch of my body intuitively believes it, as it seems yours does also. So are we wrong about such things? Should we pull out all these puzzle pieces? Imagine such a world.

At the end of the day, I'm all for the ideology that provides the best number of puzzle pieces that fit together in a logically rational way and practical way. For me it is clearly Theism, even Christianity in particular.

In this thread I've tried to encourage those who do not believe in God to construct their puzzle for me, so that I can see it and evaluate it. Sadly, not one person has taken this up but rather hides behind a shroud of agnosticism or uncertainty. Well, you don't need to see the full picture of reality in order to make your beliefs internally coherent. And internal coherency is all I'm after, but no puzzle pieces are being placed on the table. Instead, they keep trying to knock my "God" puzzle piece off the table and the hundred or so other pieces that are attached to it.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:01 am
by Danieltwotwenty
+1 Kurieuo :thumbsup: , sorry couldn't resist. :pound:

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:30 am
by Kenny
Kurieuo wrote:I'm all for questioning, digging, probing and trying to understand things as best as we reasonably can.

Christians are said to be ignorant by a growing secular majority. And yet, a stumbling block for me with Atheism--besides its pretense that it actually inspires enquiry--is that it wants to accept ignorance as a valid response to the underpinnings of reality. Oh, the irony. Atheists don't want to explore questions about the nature of reality at all, but just accept the world around us without questions. As someone who likes philosophising I find this extremely boring. And it literally sets up a worldview of reality that is based upon thin air. Just like "magic".

Consider the following questions:
  • Q: What caused the "big bang" that brought our universe (time, space, energy, matter) into existence?
    A: "The universe just is" or retort "who made God?"

    Q: How do you know what you experience is true?
    A: Because its obvious.

    Q: How do the physical laws hold together?
    A: Huh?

    Q: How is it possible for someone to come back from the dead?
    A: Dead people don't come back to life.
Ok, so I improvised on the responses and likely setup some strawmen. But, my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.

For example, consider the movie The Matrix. Everyone in the "normal" world is hooked up to a machine and experiencing a type of virtual reality. The experiences are just as real as ours in life. And yet, people "could" potentially come back from the dead in this world, as long as the software is tweaked. People can perform what appears to be "magic" by zipping through the air -- suspending the "natural laws" which are really being largely maintained by a software program that runs the virtual world. Heck, Jesus Chris could actually even rise from the dead in such a world!

Yes, it's just a movie. But here is the thing. Who's to say that the life we experience isn't in some way similar--some form of Idealism. Perhaps the machine and software on which we're running is just God. And yet, the Atheist confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!

Atheism presumes to know reality without giving it any foundation. The world just is. It just runs. It is stable. It is predictable. It's finely tuned for life? "Well, duh--we wouldn't be here otherwise!" We just are. What we hear, see, feel, taste and smell is a true representation of the world. It is just NATURAL. Dead people don't rise from the dead.

An Atheistic reality precludes any questions about how reality might be. There is no "more than meets the eye". Is this not a shallow worldview? A kind of "putting on the blinders" or "burying one's head in the sand"? Some deep-seated faith in ignorance? Let's not ask questions about how reality works and just accept what seems apparent, because to ponder such questions is what? Scarey? Would it burst your bubble?

Atheists are boring. They're predictable. They don't like to be wrong. And yet, their trust to only accept what can be known beyond a doubt as complete truth via our physical senses which would never lie to us except in someone delusional (nevermind the question that all of the reality we experience might be delusional) --- to the Atheist reading --- Come on! At least change and put some ideas on the table that discuss the nature of reality.

I'm all for at least trying, and getting things wrong and then learning and growing. Metaphysical questions are not pointless. They provide logical possibilities for why things are the way they are and how reality might function. At least with Christianity, Christians back a view of reality that is placed on the table to be scrutinised and picked apart. As a Christian I might be wrong, but at least I had the guts to back something.

An Atheist thinks its absurd to be skeptical of Atheism, and this just shows they don't like putting anything on the table. They refuse to answer any questions about the underpinnings of reality, and yet love taking the micky out of anyone elses beliefs. No wonder so many Atheists in online discussions seem so arrogant and confident -- they don't place anything on the table and criticise anyone who does whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhism or the like. How easy is that!?

If you're an Atheist reading this and have been offended, then please, break out of your mould and ponder questions regarding the nature of reality. Put something on the table and stop criticising everyone else.
Wow! You said a lot there! The problem with your post is you assume atheists agree on a lot of things. Just because you might have run into an atheist or two who may have some of the ideas you posted; doesn’t mean it is an atheistic position. The only thing atheist have in common is a lack of belief in God; everything else will vary from person to person. I think Madalyn O’Hair said it best when she said;” trying to organize atheists is like trying to herd cats!!!” If you want to know what atheists think of this or that, you will have to find an atheist and ask him; and he can only speak for himself, not all atheists

Ken

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:25 pm
by Kurieuo
I strangely agree with much of what you said Ken. So where is the issue with my original post asking an Atheist reading to put something on the table?

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:11 pm
by Kenny
Kurieuo wrote:I strangely agree with much of what you said Ken. So where is the issue with my original post asking an Atheist reading to put something on the table?
As far as putting something on the table, I assume this means claiming the possibility of something outside of what physical evidence leads you to believe. If this is not what you meant, please explain what you mean. If this is what you meant, the reason I don’t do this is because I have no reason to assume the possibility of something unless I can see evidence that leads me in that direction.

The reason I require physical evidence is because the physical reality is the only reality I am capable of experiencing; I can’t experience the spiritual world, or whatever other types of worlds people might claim, so I have no reason to assume they exist. So if I am going to put something on the table, it would probably be something akin to what science puts on the table; claims where physical evidence leads you.

Ken