Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[ObjectivistActivist]

Interesting, but taking that notion on board, aren't we all theists of some kind?

No. As my pet so aptly pointed out, there are atheists who worship no power higher than the individual, and in fact do not recognize the supremacy of any power above the individual. Individual rights, and the tenets of reason (the antithesis of faith, faith being a requirement of theism) guide such individuals in their actions and life, requiring no worship of anything inherently unknowable.

The reason that atheistic so******m and religion are two sides of the same coin is because both demand faith in something greater than the individual, meaning that the individual is nothing beside "the greater good." Whether that greater entity is God or Society, it's exactly the same thing, since God is defined as "that which exists beyond existence" and Society as "that which is not the individual." Both are nonsensical, amorphous constructs that are to be sacrificed to, whether one is willing to give or not. One's willingness is not even a factor, since the individual and the individual's designs or desires are not to be considered.

And, isn't it a kind of irony that one one thing theists and atheists (in the religion/anti religion sense) have in common is their belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

There's a very big difference between belief and knowledge. I know atheism is right for a few reasons, the largest of which are as follows:

1) Does the universe function without the interference of a supernatural force? Indeed, can the forces at work in the universe be altered by appeasement of said supernatural, inherently unknowable force? The answer to the former is yes, and the answer to the latter is no. Thus, taking Occam at his word (though he had attempted to prove the existence of god rationally) "the simplest answer is most often the correct one."

2) Is faith a valid means of accumulating knowledge, of directing action towards the betterment of individual life, or of forming a cogent and integrated vision of reality? The answer to all of the preceding questions is no, faith is incapable of achieving any of those things. It takes reason to do those things, and one must work within the confines of the natural world, excluding from all equations and judgments the supernatural (i.e. that which does not exist). Nowhere does religion or faith form a cogent or applicable vision of reality, nor of a proper moral code intended to live within reality, and thus it is to be rejected on all levels as a detriment to life.

3) Does morality depend on faith, or on edicts from a supernatural entity? No, it doesn't, and there is every rational reason to be a moral person.

That being said, you are free to choose to ignore your rational faculty if you wish. I will not coddle you for it, nor support you when your inability to function irrationally forever catches up to you, nor will I allow you to take by force from me that which you would need to support your irrational life at my expense (in other words, I will defend myself against any use of force initiated against me). But you are free to try to live on faith and waste your time, energy, and resources trying to appease a supernatural ghost or distant genetic hope, both of which are without solid identity or definition, if that is your wish. Such is the beauty of rational secularism. It is a courtesy very rarely returned by the other side of the coin, who tend to like to use bombs, production stopping protests, or sniper rounds to make the point of "believe in the invisible man I do, or you will be purified."

EDIT: Why is most of s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m being edited by the forum?

[lstsl]

First the great mystery:

Why is most of s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m being edited by the forum?

c-i-a-l-i-s is the brand name of a drug for ED (chemical: tadalafil)

And onwards and upwards!

I myself am neither athiest nor agnostic. I definatly believe in a higher power, although I find the idea of a bearded old guy chilling in the clouds a bit hard to swallow. Someone once said that a god whose primary concern was the day-to-day workings of humans can't be a very important god. I believe there is no overall "plan" but in an infinite amount of time everything that can happen will happen, so the point becomes moot. My beliefs stem from a combination of science, logic, religious texts, and my own moral feelings. I don't see any incongruity of somebody taking this-and-that from a religion and leaving the rest. If it doesn't work, or isn't relevant to you, why follow it just to claim a label? If I read a book about a cowboy who is courteous to his neighbors, helps out with his community, is generally a good guy but, has a nasty habit of shooting Mexicans (no offence to any Mexicans intended), can I not model my life after this cowboy without having to go on a shooting rampage?

Before I go any further I am just going to say that I have a habit of being the devils advocate (OH! interesting topic: Satanists rebelling against Christianity), and many times argue a point that I don't necessarily agree with, just to see if I can, and to get the most out of a conversation. That being said, I have a couple of thought experiments

1) young Jane grew up to be an athiest in a devout Catholic family. Her religious views 'disappointed' her family but they remained as close and loving as any family. When Jane turns 23 her mother is diagnosed with terminal cervical cancer. Her mothers strong faith allows her to approach her imminant demise with a sense of acceptance. This made the transition easier (by no means easy) for the entire family, including athiestic Jane. After her mother passed on, after battling bravely for several months, she willed Jane her cruxifix necklace, through which she drew much of her strength. Jane wore the cruxifix, not out of guilt or new found faith, but rather to draw upon the memory of her mothers stoic strength in the face of what, for most people, is the most traumatic experience of their life (i.e the end of it). She found something beyond herself to believe in. Religion provides people with symbols, which are merely an external focus to help you find what is already inside of you.

I think that most people on this thread are from the "Western world" and as such have a warped view of... perspective is the only word coming to mind but it's not quite right... scale maybe? We exist in massive, MASSIVE societies, made even bigger by the advent of the internet. Someone previously stated that some athiests believe in no higher power than the individual, that some may be contemptable of the so-called (and in some cases self-professed) sheep. This is all fine and dandy to be a cut-throat and build up your personal fortune on the gullibility and stupidity of other people, but to put the individual ahead of the society is, literally, cancerous. Since we live in these gigantic societies there is more of a buffer zone, an individual can't make too much of a dent in the system. But what of Africa? For the most part, the countries we see on the map are there only for the convenience of the UN. There exist hundreds of tribes who are just that: tribes. Just like you or me, they have different interests, ideas, dreams from person to person even within the same small tribe. If one person was to start recklessly pursuing personal gain at the expense of others, trouble follows quickly.

Which brings us to
2) there is a native who is put into non-specific situation where his own personal sacrifice (that of his life) will save all 23 other members of his tribe. His failure to lay down his life will surely result in the deaths of everyone but himself. How long do you think this individual will survive by himself in the African wilderness, with no social support, if he chooses the latter option?
I do not believe that human beings are individuals. We merely exist within the context of our society. Hitler took this view to the extreme, just as the Spaniards in charge of the Inquisition took their religious views to the extreme.

As others on this thread before me have said, religion is the precurser to science. The old gods were given birth out of the cold, dark night as the first primordial humans huddled around the fire in fear of what they could not understand. Just like the case of the modern-day bully and geek, they thought to appease their nameless fears, and in this way control them. In some places (like Africa), it is important to have something that ties a community together like religion, if for no other reason than it is important to know there is a group of people you can count on no matter what. The problem seems to me not to be one of religion or spirituality, but of extremism.


In closing, I would just like to say: Have you ever seen an atom? Ever likely to?


PS: I would like to say just one thing to all the people who dispute the theory of evolution: How many songs could Jesus fit on his iPod?

[Virulent]

I'm going to try and extract the premises from the prose. Let me know if I miss.

I definatly believe in a higher power ... a god whose primary concern was the day-to-day workings of humans can't be a very important god... I believe there is no overall "plan"... My beliefs stem from a combination of science, logic, religious texts, and my own moral feelings... I don't see any incongruity of somebody taking this-and-that from a religion and leaving the rest. If it doesn't work...

Summary: Spinozan deist. Fair enough?

Thought experiment #1... why does x wear her mother's crucifix?

Your answer: "Religion provides people with symbols, which are merely an external focus to help you find what is already inside of you."

I think its simpler than that. x is simply sentimental. Example: the 20th century appropriation of the swastika. Symbols mean whatever we say they mean. Further, to claim a social definition of a symbol exists is provably false, as no two people apprehend the same object the exact same way, as Husserl and Heidegger pointed out in their writings on phenomenology.

I think that most people on this thread are from the "Western world" and as such have a warped view of... perspective is the only word coming to mind but it's not quite right... scale maybe? We exist in massive, MASSIVE...

What is your premise? If your argument is that truth is relative and that we only have access to "Western truth", then I think you're using a useless definition of truth.

Thought experiment #2... why do individuals sacrifice themselves for society?

Your answer (paraphrased): individuals will not survive without social support

You're saying that individuals must (at least occasionally) be willing to sacrifice everything for the good of their society, which as you note by reference to Hitler, is the definition of fascism.

Obviously I disagree completely. I'm kind of surprised too - most rational people only advocate fascism unintentionally. Any just society is based upon free association; any society that uses compulsion should be destroyed by any means convenient.

Humans don't need long-term compulsory (and especially not statist) societies to exist. Most Stone Age peoples lived in fluid "bands"; most Native Americans in particular "split" their encampments during the hunting season into family units, and reformed in the winter (or not - it was not unusual for a family unit to join another encampment if that's where they found themselves when snow came). Its simply false to claim that human beings can't survive without society - it is indeed a fact that we spent the majority of our existence surviving without any inconvenient associations.

it is important to know there is a group of people you can count on no matter what.

No such thing.

In closing, I would just like to say: Have you ever seen an atom? Ever likely to?

No. Do you have a premise?

[lstsl]

I'm going to try and extract the premises from the prose. Let me know if I miss.

Summary: Spinozan deist. Fair enough?

I don't know what that means?

Thought experiment #1... why does x wear her mother's crucifix?

Your answer: "Religion provides people with symbols, which are merely an external focus to help you find what is already inside of you."

I think its simpler than that. x is simply sentimental. Example: the 20th century appropriation of the swastika. Symbols mean whatever we say they mean.

Actually that is exactly the point I was trying to make. x wears the cruxifix and draws strength "from it" just as her mother did, but for completely different reasons. I was trying to illustrate that a person can wear a cruxifix (or swastika or what-have-you) without having to identify with the larger group that symbol is associated with (although you should deffinatly think twice before wearing a swastika in public).

What is your premise? If your argument is that truth is relative and that we only have access to "Western truth", then I think you're using a useless definition of truth.

Not at all. What I'm saying here is that we are biased in our opinions of individuals and how they should act in their society, when the majority of the world is not set up like us. For instance, I find it mind-boggling that over half the worlds population has never made a phone call, something I take for granted about every other day.

Thought experiment #2... why do individuals sacrifice themselves for society?

Your answer (paraphrased): individuals will not survive without social support

You're saying that individuals must (at least occasionally) be willing to sacrifice everything for the good of their society, which as you note by reference to Hitler, is the definition of fascism.

Obviously I disagree completely. I'm kind of surprised too - most rational people only advocate fascism unintentionally. Any just society is based upon free association; any society that uses compulsion should be destroyed by any means convenient.

I half-wrote a reply to this before realizing I was getting way off topic. If you would like to continue this particular thread on facism Virulent, please PM me, as I would be delighted to disscuss this with you

Humans don't need long-term compulsory (and especially not statist) societies to exist. Most Stone Age peoples lived in fluid "bands"; most Native Americans in particular "split" their encampments during the hunting season into family units, and reformed in the winter (or not - it was not unusual for a family unit to join another encampment if that's where they found themselves when snow came). Its simply false to claim that human beings can't survive without society - it is indeed a fact that we spent the majority of our existence surviving without any inconvenient associations.

This arguement actually supports my theory. The natives broke down into family units in the summer, not individual humans running around trying to survive. Just because they were more fluid in their arrangments doesn't mean they didn't have societies. Look all over the world and you will not find a single example of an individualist population (i.e everybody in the area acting completely autonomously). There are always examples of hermits and such but these are mostly isolated occurances, by no means the 'norm'. If you were a native American in one of the little family units and were engaging in behaviour that was detrimental to that unit you can bet you'd find yourself dead or on your own pretty quickly.

No such thing.
The Amish. I have a hard time finding a few friends to help me move my furniture, let alone getting 200 people to build a barn without power tools.

No. Do you have a premise?

Only this: people believe in atoms, something they cannot directly experience for themselves, because they go to school where they are told that atoms make up everything. People who go to church are told that God (something they cannot directly experience) makes up everything. What's the difference? Scientists now occupy the position preists and clergymen did in the past, why won't they become corrupt and use their new positions of power to gain more power? Everybody acts like scientists are saints (hahaha, I made a funny!), but their motives aren't necessarily pure. Today, science is an industry and there is money to be had. If the difference between despotism and millions of dollars is fudging your test results a little... kah-CHING!!!

[Thorne]

people believe in atoms, something they cannot directly experience for themselves, because they go to school where they are told that atoms make up everything. People who go to church are told that God (something they cannot directly experience) makes up everything. What's the difference?

The term "atoms" is a label, used to describe a state of matter which scientists have deduced from experimentation and observation. (Actually, I think they have actually seen the atom, through electron microscopes or something similar, but I'm not sure of it.) It's like using the term "chair" to describe a piece of furniture which is used for sitting. You can call it anything you like, but it's purpose is still the same.

So too with the atom. Scientists are able, repeatedly and quantifiably, to isolate discrete particles of matter which they term atoms. And when they treat these atoms to certain experiments, under certain conditions, they will react in predictable, and repeatable, ways.

This is the difference between science and religion. You don't have to take anything on faith. If someone has achieved a certain result in science, you can achieve the same result by performing the same test. It's not necessary to believe in atoms. You just have to do the experiments yourself to show that they do, indeed, exist.

[Shwenn]

Summary: Spinozan deist. Fair enough?

I don't know what that means?

....

Only this: people believe in atoms, something they cannot directly experience for themselves, because they go to school where they are told that atoms make up everything. People who go to church are told that God (something they cannot directly experience) makes up everything. What's the difference? Scientists now occupy the position preists and clergymen did in the past, why won't they become corrupt and use their new positions of power to gain more power? Everybody acts like scientists are saints (hahaha, I made a funny!), but their motives aren't necessarily pure. Today, science is an industry and there is money to be had. If the difference between despotism and millions of dollars is fudging your test results a little... kah-CHING!!!

First, Spinoza's God is basically the universe itself.

And, to add to Thorne's post, about the verifiability of atoms, I'd like to mention something about science itself.

It's called peer review. Getting published in science is like running a gauntlet. It is notoriously difficult. If you fudge your test results, your vicious peers will find out and they will roast you over an open flame. I worked on an experiment designed to disprove Einstein's relativity. Einsein, the man is considered something of a science God, not just a saint. And we felt we were paying the man respect by trying to show he was wrong.

There is no comparisson between the scientific community today and the religious community of old. None at all.

To us, nothing is sacred. We challenge everything. We call everything into doubt.

[lstsl]

First, Spinoza's God is basically the universe itself.

And, to add to Thorne's post, about the verifiability of atoms, I'd like to mention something about science itself.

It's called peer review. Getting published in science is like running a gauntlet. It is notoriously difficult. If you fudge your test results, your vicious peers will find out and they will roast you over an open flame. I worked on an experiment designed to disprove Einstein's relativity. Einsein, the man is considered something of a science God, not just a saint. And we felt we were paying the man respect by trying to show he was wrong.

There is no comparisson between the scientific community today and the religious community of old. None at all.

To us, nothing is sacred. We challenge everything. We call everything into doubt.

Thank you for explaining Spinoza.

Now the first schools in Europe after Rome collapsed.... where would you find them... Hmmm, let me think....... could it possibly be in A MONESTARY?? Damn those tricky, religious monks. I bet they were going to corrupt all that juicy knowledge they had preserved to lend weight to the Intelligent Design arguement.

The truth is not all scientists are saints, neither are all saints. There are some scientists that are truely in it for the greater good of mankind, just as there have been many religious figures throughout history whose primary concern was furthering humanity. On the flip side, there are just as many (if not more) scientists who are in the game for their own personal gain. People are people no matter what label you stick on them, some are selfless, some will take advantage of any situation they come upon, sayin that there is no comparison between religion and science is just ignorant.

PS nobody ever has seen an atom. They may have seen something on a TV screen but just because you see it on TV doesn't make it real.

PPS I believe in atoms, I'm just using it as an example that there are things we cannot see, feel, taste, smell or hear, and therefore forced to take on faith.