What is an Atheist?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:08 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:39 pm...you're simply not the type of hardcore atheist (i.e., the third option in your list) to which my comments are directed.

Again, if you honestly believe that there is no higher intelligence involved in the creation of the universe...
That would be the position of the hardcore atheist/anti-theist that you have just acknowledged I am not.
As much as you will no doubt insist that I am mistaken, I'm afraid that when it comes to the crux of my argument, I simply don't see a whole lot of difference between the following two assertions,...
  • 1. "I believe there is no God" (hardcore [anti-theist] atheism).

    2. "I do not believe there is a God" (your brand of soft atheism).
...for they both imply that the proponents of either option operate under the shared assumption that nothing intelligent was involved in the creation of the universe.

Now, unless you are going to suggest that the reality we are experiencing could be an elaborate "simulation" taking place on a computer somewhere, or some other such nonsense similar to that,...

...then, again, your brand of so-called "soft" atheism does not avoid the implication that the amazing order of our world was somehow founded upon blind and mindless (serendipitous) processes.

Thus, at least in that regard, you are no different from the "hardcore" (anti-theist) atheist.

(Continued in next post)
_______
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:39 pmJust tell me what you think the alternative [to intelligent design] might be?
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:08 pm I don't know if you have seen the latest iteration of my book, but there is a whole section devoted to how the material involved in the big bang becomes fundamental particles,...
Yes, and the presumption is that the primordial "material" of the universe...

(what you have previously referred to as being a "duck pond" or a "record groove" or a "rug that wrinkles after being kicked")

...somehow came pre-imbued with the propensity to magically "become" fundamental particles that then...
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:08 pm ...make atoms, primarily hydrogen and helium.
Yes, the serendipitously created particles derived from a mysterious primordial substance that forms what you call a "duck pond," then serendipitously "make" hydrogen and helium atoms, which (praise the Lord Chance :P) just so happen to be the perfect base substance (the perfect "building blocks") from which fusion dynamos (stars) are made.
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:08 pm ...It goes on to explain how gravity forms those gases into stars,...
Can you not hear what you are saying?

Are you completely unaware of what is implied when you say that "...gravity forms those gases into stars..."?

Please forgive me, uwot, for constantly responding with the same old argument and images in what has come to be our little perennial debate, but what you are implying is that an utterly blind and mindless phenomenon that we call "gravity",...

(without the slightest hint of teleological impetus or an inherent reason to do so)

...somehow managed to "form"...

(as in "make" "fashion" "shape" "model" "mold" "assemble" etc., etc.)


...a bunch of already "serendipitously-created" atoms and gasses into the absolute perfect (and unimaginably stable) source of heat, light, and bio-powering energy...

Image

And if that wasn't remarkable enough, then there is this...
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:08 pm ...and how stellar nucleosynthesis forms heavier elements, critically carbon and oxygen, which together with primordial hydrogen are essential to life as we know it...
Yes, that is indeed the conclusion that the "reverse engineering" of matter has led material scientists to come to.

However, do you know what else is essential to life as we know it? --> an absolutely perfect setting like this...

Image

I'm talking about a setting where (according to you) the blind and mindless stumblings of "chance and gravity," without the slightest way of "knowing" what they were actually doing, were nevertheless able to not only create the unfathomably stable framework of the setting to begin with,...

...but were also able (via sheer chance) to "fully-equip" the setting with every essential ingredient and process necessary to facilitate the efflorescence (emergence/awakening into existence) of billions of multifarious lifeforms from the very fabric of the setting itself.

To which I say - ridiculous!

Now, of course, I will no doubt be accused of violating that old philosophical chestnut: "argument from incredulity."

But I don't care.

Why?

Because the "chance hypothesis" is one of the most incredulous theories in existence (indeed, it's almost as bad as Everett's "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics").
_______
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by commonsense »

seeds wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:45 pm
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:08 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:39 pm...you're simply not the type of hardcore atheist (i.e., the third option in your list) to which my comments are directed.

Again, if you honestly believe that there is no higher intelligence involved in the creation of the universe...
That would be the position of the hardcore atheist/anti-theist that you have just acknowledged I am not.
As much as you will no doubt insist that I am mistaken, I'm afraid that when it comes to the crux of my argument, I simply don't see a whole lot of difference between the following two assertions,...
  • 1. "I believe there is no God" (hardcore [anti-theist] atheism).

    2. "I do not believe there is a God" (your brand of soft atheism).
...for they both imply that the proponents of either option operate under the shared assumption that nothing intelligent was involved in the creation of the universe.

Now, unless you are going to suggest that the reality we are experiencing could be an elaborate "simulation" taking place on a computer somewhere, or some other such nonsense similar to that,...

...then, again, your brand of so-called "soft" atheism does not avoid the implication that the amazing order of our world was somehow founded upon blind and mindless (serendipitous) processes.

Thus, at least in that regard, you are no different from the "hardcore" (anti-theist) atheist.

(Continued in next post)
_______
Please note: #1 above says that I have a belief. #2 says I don’t have a belief. Not the same.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by attofishpi »

commonsense wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:47 pm
seeds wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:45 pm
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 11:08 pm
That would be the position of the hardcore atheist/anti-theist that you have just acknowledged I am not.
As much as you will no doubt insist that I am mistaken, I'm afraid that when it comes to the crux of my argument, I simply don't see a whole lot of difference between the following two assertions,...
  • 1. "I believe there is no God" (hardcore [anti-theist] atheism).

    2. "I do not believe there is a God" (your brand of soft atheism).
...for they both imply that the proponents of either option operate under the shared assumption that nothing intelligent was involved in the creation of the universe.

Now, unless you are going to suggest that the reality we are experiencing could be an elaborate "simulation" taking place on a computer somewhere, or some other such nonsense similar to that,...

...then, again, your brand of so-called "soft" atheism does not avoid the implication that the amazing order of our world was somehow founded upon blind and mindless (serendipitous) processes.

Thus, at least in that regard, you are no different from the "hardcore" (anti-theist) atheist.

(Continued in next post)
_______
Please note: #1 above says that I have a belief. #2 says I don’t have a belief. Not the same.
Personally, I think they are just stating the same thing, it could be written in a single sentence: I believe there is no God, and that is to say, I do not believe there is a God.

Anyway, seeds, I think you are going a bit overboard mate. I think from reading previous posts, that you believe we are not in out perfect form (as humans) and that we will evolve into something else? I remember when I was much younger reading about how some believe that we will evolve into a 'cloud of pure conscious thought' - a gas bubble of some sort - well F*** THAT!! I like my disgusting human body thank you very much!!
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:45 pm...your brand of so-called "soft" atheism does not avoid the implication that the amazing order of our world was somehow founded upon blind and mindless (serendipitous) processes.

Thus, at least in that regard, you are no different from the "hardcore" (anti-theist) atheist.
Well, I suppose the difference is that the hardcore atheist you propose is convinced that chance is the universe's creative force; I'm only convinced that it could be. You on the other hand are convinced it couldn't. The three of us could stare at the same picture of a sunset all day long and not shift our positions an inch. What we are looking at is all very splendid, but it is a scene you will only find in a layer of atmosphere about a mile wide, in the temperate latitudes of a planet in the habitable zone of small star. Given the scale of the universe and the number of stars and planets, it would not surprise me has chance created similar niches conducive to life elsewhere. The rest of the observable universe is 92 billion light years of conditions that would kill you very quickly. If a god is responsible, why is it not chance that we happen to have a god who thinks this is the best way to do it?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by Harbal »

A person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. That's what the dictionary says. Other than that, there is nothing else that those who call themselves atheists need have in common. Seems quite simple and straightforward to me.
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by commonsense »

Harbal wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:26 am A person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. That's what the dictionary says. Other than that, there is nothing else that those who call themselves atheists need have in common. Seems quite simple and straightforward to me.
You’re right, of course. That’s what the dictionary says.

Even so, I think there’s a distinction to be made between atheism and agnosticism.

One believes, or is certain, there is no god. The other is not sure whether there is a god or not.
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by commonsense »

seeds wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:43 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:08 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 9:39 pm
In light of the mythological nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds via the world's religions (combined with a lack of any verifiable evidence for the existence of God), I completely understand why you would call yourself an atheist (of the "second kind" per your list).

However, I cannot help but ask that if you do not believe that the universe is the product of some higher level of intelligence, then what is the alternative?

And if you repeat to me what you have admitted several times in the past, that you haven't completely ruled-out Berkeley's concept of God, then you're simply not the type of hardcore atheist (i.e., the third option in your list) to which my comments are directed.

Again, if you honestly believe that there is no higher intelligence involved in the creation of the universe, then don't be wishy-washy in your answer. Just tell me what you think the alternative might be?
_______
The universe was not created. It has always been. It is ordered only in the minds of those who say so. In reality the universe is a patternless cacophony of chaos.
So, there was no "Big Bang"?

I suspect that the only reason you made that statement is so that you could use the phrase:

"...patternless cacophony of chaos..." :D

I like it, but it's nonsense.
_______
At what time did this Big Bang occur?
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by commonsense »

seeds wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:44 pm
commonsense wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 1:35 am
seeds wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:59 pm _______

"...What is an Atheist?..."

There's is no denying the fact that most atheists are very intelligent (which is why they became atheists in the first place).

However, according to this (perhaps over-used) quote from one of the founding fathers of quantum physics...
In which case, an atheist (especially a hardcore atheist) is someone who simply hasn't quite made it to the bottom of the glass yet.
_______
I’m not an atheist, but I object nonetheless to a quote that portrays God as the dregs of a liquid or an ooze. The quote does nothing to justify a belief in the Existence of God. It only asserts that God exists as a precipitate.
Apparently, metaphor is not your cuppa tea.
_______
The metaphor breaks down in the cacophony :)
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9561
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by Harbal »

commonsense wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:27 pm
You’re right, of course. That’s what the dictionary says.

Even so, I think there’s a distinction to be made between atheism and agnosticism.

One believes, or is certain, there is no god. The other is not sure whether there is a god or not.
Actually, I think the existence of the word atheist is the problem. Why is it necessary to have a word for not being something? I mean, if a theist is someone who believes in God, why am I simply just not a theist? A person who collects stamps is a philatelist, but we don't seem to need a word for a person who doesn't collect stamps.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

So if I want to be one of these atheistical things, which of these religious zealots do I need to apply to for my licence?
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by promethean75 »

there is no such thing as atheism. one can't say 'i don't believe there is a god' since the word 'god' is meaningless and the statement in which it is contained is therefore nonsense.

thank you and good day.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by Advocate »

[quote=promethean75 post_id=588715 time=1659974337 user_id=16524]
there is no such thing as atheism. one can't say 'i don't believe there is a god' since the word 'god' is meaningless and the statement in which it is contained is therefore nonsense.

thank you and good day.
[/quote]

The word god has many meanings, none of which have an external referent so they are all indistinguishable from fiction and i don't believe in fiction.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belief without evidence closes the door to wonder, the magic man in the sky did it. No need to question that now is there. Silly anthropomorphism!
seeds
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: What is an Atheist?

Post by seeds »

commonsense wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:29 pm
seeds wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:43 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 10:08 pm
The universe was not created. It has always been. It is ordered only in the minds of those who say so. In reality the universe is a patternless cacophony of chaos.
So, there was no "Big Bang"?

I suspect that the only reason you made that statement is so that you could use the phrase:

"...patternless cacophony of chaos..." :D

I like it, but it's nonsense.
_______
At what time did this Big Bang occur?
Well, if you imagine the bracket on the lefthand side of the word "universe" in this simple illustration...

ETERNITY<----[universe]---->ETERNITY

...as being the "BANG POINT" (the inception point) of our little universe, and the bracket on the righthand side of the word "universe" as being the "NOW",...

...then at least according to the proponents of modern cosmology, the time of the Big Bang was approximately 13.8 billion years ago (with time being arbitrarily measured by using the particular cadence of the "clock" of our little solar system).

However, if you imagine that each of the tiny dashes extending in either direction away from the brackets, represent one billion years of our solar system's time cadence,...

...then when compared to the "real" amount of time implicit in either direction of "ETERNITY," the entire 13.8 billion year age of the universe...

(represented by what lies in-between the two brackets)

...is not even the blink of an eye.
_______
Post Reply